4.8 Article

Scientific evidence for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

期刊

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 803-810

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00732-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Yale-NUS College
  2. UNU-EHS
  3. University of Massachusetts-Amherst
  4. University of Lausanne, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecosystems play a crucial role in reducing global disaster risk, but research in this area is still lacking, especially in the Global South. Many ecosystems can provide sustainable approaches to disaster risk reduction, but more research is needed to fill the gaps.
Disaster risks are a critical area for research, but while the focus has been on man-made adaptation, this analysis of 529 studies compiles evidence for how ecosystems can mitigate hazard vulnerabilities. Ecosystems play a potentially important role in sustainably reducing the risk of disaster events worldwide. Yet, to date, there are few comprehensive studies that summarize the state of knowledge of ecosystem services and functions for disaster risk reduction. This paper builds scientific evidence through a review of 529 English-language articles published between 2000 and 2019. It catalogues the extent of knowledge on, and confidence in, ecosystems in reducing disaster risk. The data demonstrate robust links and cost-effectiveness between certain ecosystems in reducing specific hazards, something that was revealed to be particularly true for the role of vegetation in the stabilization of steep slopes. However, the published research was limited in geographic distribution and scope, with a concentration on urban areas of the Global North, with insufficient relevant research on coastal, dryland and watershed areas, especially in the Global South. Many types of ecosystem can provide sustainable and multifunctional approaches to disaster risk reduction. Yet, if they are to play a greater role, more attention is needed to fill research gaps and develop performance standards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据