Semi-systematic review reveals distinct trade-offs between bio-based and ecosystem-based climate strategies, highlighting synergies achieved through their integration.
Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, threatening ecosystems, livelihoods, and economic systems worldwide, particularly in developing countries. Nature-based approaches, especially bio-based and ecosystem-based strategies, have gained attention for their potential to support climate change mitigation and disaster risk reduction. This review provides a comparative analysis of these two approaches by synthesizing evidence from peer-reviewed literature and institutional reports published between 2004 and 2026. A semi-systematic review design was applied, covering 63 selected studies from major scientific databases and gray literature sources. Unlike previous reviews that examine bio-based and ecosystem-based approaches separately, this review provides a comparative assessment of their respective mitigation and disaster risk reduction capacities, identifies key trade-offs, and proposes integration pathways to maximize synergies for climate-resilient development. The findings indicate that bio-based approaches offer significant carbon sequestration potential and livelihood benefits, although they are constrained by trade-offs such as land competition, carbon permanence, and monoculture risks. Ecosystem-based approaches provide broader landscape-scale benefits, including carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, flood regulation, coastal protection, and enhanced resilience. The review highlights that integrating both approaches can enhance synergies, reduce trade-offs, and support sustainable and climate-resilient development pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Said Ahmed (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: