Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

In recent years, there has been a growth in scholarship on “nature-based solutions” and “natural climate to change. A variety of actors have argued that these natural solutions—variously involving the protection, conservation, restoration, management, enhancement, or imitation ecosystems—can play crucial role both mitigating adapting What is more, by virtue their label, solutions promise be particularly attractive public policymakers received significant media scholarly attention. But what also social: people, acting various social groups, can selectively emphasize deemphasize certain characteristics make them seem more less natural. The framing particular as “natural” “unnatural” far-reaching implications for policy, but thus far overlooked. Here, we undertake critical review ways which change framed examine normative practical this framing. We counts (and does not count) solution, find those labeled are routinely under technical appraisal criteria being beneficial, cost effective, mature, democratic than ostensibly artificial counterparts. And yet show that, greater scrutiny, obscures reality just risky, expensive, immature, technocratic. conclude reflecting dangers narrowing range considered indeed, selecting through recourse “nature” at all. Rather, must evaluated terms specific qualities, against broader framings. This article categorized under: Social Status Climate Change Knowledge > Practice