Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Global evidence of human well-being and biodiversity impacts of natural climate solutions

Nature Sustainability volume 8, pages 75–85 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Natural climate solutions (NCS) play a critical role in climate change mitigation. NCS can generate win–win co-benefits for biodiversity and human well-being, but they can also involve trade-offs (co-impacts). However, the massive evidence base on NCS co-benefits and possible trade-offs is poorly understood. We employ large language models to assess over 2 million published journal articles, primarily written in English, finding 257,266 relevant studies on NCS co-impacts. Using machine learning methods to extract data (for example, study ___location, species and other key variables), we create a global evidence map on NCS co-impacts. We find that global evidence on NCS co-impacts has grown approximately tenfold in three decades, and some of the most abundant evidence relates to NCS that have lower mitigation potential. Studies often examine multiple NCS, indicating some natural complementarities. Finally, we identify countries with high carbon mitigation potential but a relatively weak body of evidence on NCS co-impacts. Through effective methods and systematic and representative data on NCS co-impacts, we provide timely insights to inform NCS-related research and action globally.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Evidence base generation process.
Fig. 2: Characteristics of the evidence base.
Fig. 3: NCS and co-impacts evidence base.
Fig. 4: The volume of evidence for NCS ‘protect’ strategies across countries versus their maximum climate mitigation potential through NCS and threatened biodiversity.
Fig. 5: Co-occurrence of NCS and co-impact categories.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and materials used in the analysis are available at our GitHub repository at https://github.com/lexunit-ai/ncs-evidence-map.

Code availability

Code used for this study is available at our GitHub repository at https://github.com/lexunit-ai/ncs-evidence-map.

References

  1. Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kikstra, J. S. et al. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WGIII climate assessment of mitigation pathways: from emissions to global temperatures. Geosci. Model Dev. 15, 9075–9109 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Crumpler, K. et al. Assessing the role of agriculture and land use in nationally determined contributions: a methodology. In Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper 76 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019).

  4. Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the united states. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1027–1034 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith, P. et al. Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Opportunities to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions: A Roadmap for Climate Progress, Thriving Nature, Equity, & Prosperity (White House Council on Environmental Quality, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy & White House Domestic Climate Policy Office, 2022).

  8. Nature and Net Zero (McKinsey Consulting & World Economic Forum, 2021).

  9. Executive Order N-82-20 (Executive Department State of California, 2020).

  10. Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Girardin, C. A. et al. Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet — if we act now. Nature 593, 191–194 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

  13. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).

  14. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris Agreement. In Report of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1–42 (HeinOnline, 2015).

  15. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (United Nations Environment Programme, 2022).

  16. Pörtner, H.-O. et al. IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Climate Change (IPBES-IPCC, 2021).

  17. Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).

  18. Emissions Gap Report: The Heat is On – A World of Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021).

  19. Roe, S. et al. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 6025–6058 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Shindell, D. et al. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335, 183–189 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stewart, R. B., Oppenheimer, M. & Rudyk, B. A new strategy for global climate protection. Climatic Change 120, 1–12 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190120 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schulte, I., Eggers, J., Nielsen, J. Ø. & Fuss, S. What influences the implementation of natural climate solutions? A systematic map and review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 013002 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown, S. E., Miller, D. C., Ordonez, P. J. & Baylis, K. Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: a systematic map protocol. Environ. Evid. 7, 24 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shimamoto, C. Y., Padial, A. A., da Rosa, C. M. & Marques, M. C. Restoration of ecosystem services in tropical forests: a global meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 13, e0208523 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hua, F. et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science 376, 839–844 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Snilstveit, B., Vojtkova, M., Bhavsar, A., Stevenson, J. & Gaarder, M. Evidence & gap maps: a tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 79, 120–129 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McKinnon, M. C. et al. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ. Evid. 5, 8 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Berrang-Ford, L. et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 989–1000 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Callaghan, M. et al. Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 966–972 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Game, E. T. et al. Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy. Nat. Sustain. 1, 452–454 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Haynes, R. B., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J. & Sinclair, J. C. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in medline. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1, 447–458 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Westgate, M. J., Barton, P. S., Pierson, J. C. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Text analysis tools for identification of emerging topics and research gaps in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1606–1614 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berrang-Ford, L. et al. Systematic mapping of global research on climate and health: a machine learning review. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e514–e525 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Porciello, J., Ivanina, M., Islam, M., Einarson, S. & Hirsh, H. Accelerating evidence-informed decision-making for the Sustainable Development Goals using machine learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 559–565 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Porciello, J., Lipper, L. & Ivanina, M. Using machine learning to evaluate 1.2 million studies on small-scale farming and post-production food systems in low-and middle-income countries. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6, 1013701 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Edwards, K. et al. ADVISE: accelerating the creation of evidence syntheses for global development using natural language processing-supported human-artificial intelligence collaboration. J. Mech. Des. 146, 051404 (2024).

  38. Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. Web of Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics 121, 1803–1813 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Konno, K. & Pullin, A. S. Assessing the risk of bias in choice of search sources for environmental meta-analyses. Res. Synth. Methods 11, 698–713 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Blevins, T. & Zettlemoyer, L. Language contamination helps explains the cross-lingual capabilities of English pretrained models. In Proc. 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 3563–3574 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022).

  42. Huang, H. et al. Not all languages are created equal in LLMs: improving multilingual capability by cross-lingual-thought prompting. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 12365–12394 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023).

  43. Bang, Y. et al. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. In Proc. 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 675–718 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023).

  44. Hendy, A. et al. How good are GPT models at machine translation? A comprehensive evaluation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09210 (2023).

  45. Dobrescu, A. et al. Restricting evidence syntheses of interventions to English-language publications is a viable methodological shortcut for most medical topics: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 137, 209–217 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Amano, T. et al. Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLOS Biol. 19, e3001296 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S. & Dean, J. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In International Conference on Learning Representations: Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations Workshop Track 1301–3781 (ICLR, 2013).

  49. Bommarito, M. J., Katz, D. M. & Detterman, E. M. LexNLP: natural language processing and information extraction for legal and regulatory texts. in Research Handbook on Big Data Law 216–227 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021).

  50. Petry, W. K. & Levine, J. M. A meta-analysis of the biodiversity co-benefits of NCS (2023).

  51. Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585, 545–550 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Chapman, M. et al. Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4357–4365 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Griscom, B. W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190126 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Lipsett-Moore, G. J., Wolff, N. H. & Game, E. T. Emissions mitigation opportunities for savanna countries from early dry season fire management. Nat. Commun. 9, 2247 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9575–9580 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Liu, H. et al. Annual dynamics of global land cover and its long-term changes from 1982 to 2015. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1217–1243 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2022-2) (IUCN, 2022).

  59. Smits, J. & Permanyer, I. The Subnational Human Development Database. Sci. Data 6, 190038 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2022: Correcting Course (World Bank, 2022).

  61. de Castañeda, R. R. et al. One Health and planetary health research: leveraging differences to grow together. Lancet Planet. Health 7, e109–e111 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Osaka, S., Bellamy, R. & Castree, N. Framing “nature-based” solutions to climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e729 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Deutz, A. et al. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap (The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy & the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, 2020).

  64. Austin, K. et al. The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 5946 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Halterman, A. Mordecai: Full text geoparsing and event geocoding. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 91 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions: A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling Up of NbS (IUCN, 2020).

  67. Ellis, P. W. et al. The principles of natural climate solutions. Nat. Commun. 15, 547 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Howard, J. et al. Blue carbon pathways for climate mitigation: known, emerging and unlikely. Mar. Policy 156, 105788 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Reimers, N. & Gurevych, I. Sentence-BERT: sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. In Proc. 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) 3982–3992 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

  70. Grootendorst, M. R. et al. MaartenGr/BERTopic: v0.12.0 (v0.12.0). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7068172 (2022).

  71. Falkenberg, M. et al. Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1114–1121 (2022).

  72. Weng, M.-H., Wu, S. & Dyer, M. Identification and visualization of key topics in scientific publications with transformer-based language models and document clustering methods. Appl. Sci. 12, 11220 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. OpenTreeofLife et al. Open Tree of Life taxonomy (v. 13.4). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3937750 (2021).

  74. Boyd-Graber, J., Hu, Y. & Mimno, D. et al. Applications of topic models. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 11, 143–296 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Farrell, J. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 92–97 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Marlow, T., Miller, S. & Roberts, J. T. Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump’s announcement of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy 21, 765–777 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Chang, C. H., Armsworth, P. R. & Masuda, Y. J. Environmental discourse exhibits consistency and variation across spatial scales on Twitter. BioScience 72, 789–797 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Chang, C. H., Armsworth, P. R. & Masuda, Y. J. Twitter data reveal six distinct environmental personas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 481–487 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hristova, G. & Netov, N. Media coverage and public perception of distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a topic modeling approach based on BERTopic. In Proc. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) 2259–2264 (IEEE Publishing, 2022).

  80. Munger, K., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. A. Elites tweet to get feet off the streets: measuring regime social media strategies during protest. Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 7, 815–834 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Liebman, B. L., Roberts, M. E., Stern, R. E. & Wang, A. Z. Mass digitization of Chinese court decisions: how to use text as data in the field of Chinese law. J. Law Courts 8, 177–201 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Horowitz, M. et al. What makes foreign policy teams tick: explaining variation in group performance at geopolitical forecasting. J. Politics 81, 1388–1404 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hopkins, D. J. & King, G. A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 54, 229–247 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. DiMaggio, P. Adapting computational text analysis to social science (and vice versa). Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715602908 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K. & Toutanova, K. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proc. 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) 4171–4186 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019); https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423

  86. McInnes, L., Healy, J., Saul, N. & Großberger, L. UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 861 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Astels, S. hdbscan: hierarchical density based clustering. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 205 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Harris, J. M. & Roach, B. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary Approach (Routledge, 2017).

  89. Friedman, R. S. et al. Analyzing procedural equity in government-led community-based forest management. Ecol. Soc. 25, 16 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Kato-Huerta, J. & Geneletti, D. Environmental justice implications of nature-based solutions in urban areas: a systematic review of approaches, indicators, and outcomes. Environ. Sci. Policy 138, 122–133 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Dawson, N. M. et al. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, 19 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Blanco, G. D. et al. The impacts of mining on the food sovereignty and security of Indigenous peoples and local communities: a global review. Sci. Total Environ. 855, 158803 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Hill, R. et al. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 8–20 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. McElwee, P. et al. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES global assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1666–1676 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Schlingmann, A. et al. Global patterns of adaptation to climate change by Indigenous peoples and local communities. A systematic review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 51, 55–64 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Keith, D. A. et al. A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems. Nature 610, 513–518 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Rees, J. A. & Cranston, K. Automated assembly of a reference taxonomy for phylogenetic data synthesis. Biodivers. Data J. 5, e12581 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Levine, W. Petry, B. Griscom, F. Seymour, C. Girardin, L. Olander, N. Deshmukh and several others for their thoughtful feedback, as well as attendees at various presentations that strengthened our analysis and manuscript. We thank D. Lovas for technical contributions that greatly enhanced the manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or US government determination or policy. Funding from the Bezos Earth Fund and other donors supporting The Nature Conservancy benefited this project48,49,71,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Charlotte H. Chang, James T. Erbaugh, Paola Fajardo, Luci Lu, István Molnár, Dávid Papp, Brian E. Robinson, Yuta J. Masuda.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology and Environmental Analysis Program, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA

    Charlotte H. Chang

  2. Global Science, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA

    James T. Erbaugh & Timm Kroeger

  3. Department of Environmental Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    James T. Erbaugh

  4. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Paola Fajardo

  5. Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

    Luci Lu

  6. Lexunit, Budapest, Hungary

    István Molnár & Dávid Papp

  7. Department of Telecommunications and Media Informatics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Dávid Papp

  8. Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Brian E. Robinson

  9. Forest and Climate Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA

    Kemen G. Austin

  10. Tackle Climate Change, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA

    Miguel Castro, Susan Cook-Patton, Peter W. Ellis, Erin E. Poor & Lindsey S. Smart

  11. Global Science, World Wildlife Fund, Portland, OR, USA

    Samantha H. Cheng

  12. School of Global Policy & Strategy, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    Teevrat Garg

  13. Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

    Jacob P. Hochard

  14. Europe Region, The Nature Conservancy, Berlin, Germany

    Robert I. McDonald

  15. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Andrew R. Tilman

  16. Global Carbon Markets, The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR, USA

    Preston Welker

  17. Provide Food and Water, The Nature Conservancy, New Haven, CT, USA

    Stephen A. Wood

  18. Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA

    Yuta J. Masuda

Authors
  1. Charlotte H. Chang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James T. Erbaugh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paola Fajardo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luci Lu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. István Molnár
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dávid Papp
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brian E. Robinson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kemen G. Austin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Miguel Castro
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Samantha H. Cheng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Susan Cook-Patton
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Peter W. Ellis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Teevrat Garg
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jacob P. Hochard
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Timm Kroeger
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Robert I. McDonald
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Erin E. Poor
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Lindsey S. Smart
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Andrew R. Tilman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Preston Welker
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Stephen A. Wood
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Yuta J. Masuda
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.H.C., B.E.R., J.T.E., L.L., Y.J.M., I.M., D.P. and P.F. conceived the idea for the manuscript, generated new methods and performed the research. C.H.C., B.E.R., J.T.E., Y.J.M., I.M., D.P. and S.C.-P. performed data analysis and modelling, generated figures and tables, and drafted sections of the manuscript. A.R.T., S.C.-P., R.I.M., T.G., J.P.H., P.W.E., E.E.P., T.K., S.H.C., P.W., S.A.W., M.C., L.S.S., K.G.A. and P.F. performed critical reviews. Y.J.M., E.E.P., J.T.E. and R.I.M. obtained funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuta J. Masuda.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Akira Mori, Todd Rosenstock and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–7, Tables 1–17 and Discussion.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, C.H., Erbaugh, J.T., Fajardo, P. et al. Global evidence of human well-being and biodiversity impacts of natural climate solutions. Nat Sustain 8, 75–85 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01454-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01454-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing