Nature Climate Change Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions

Abstract

Viable nature-based climate solutions (NbCS) are needed to achieve climate goals expressed in international agreements like the Paris Accord. Many NbCS pathways have strong scientific foundations and can deliver meaningful climate benefits but effective mitigation is undermined by pathways with less scientific certainty. Here we couple an extensive literature review with an expert elicitation on 43 pathways and find that at present the most used pathways, such as tropical forest conservation, have a solid scientific basis for mitigation. However, the experts suggested that some pathways, many with carbon credit eligibility and market activity, remain uncertain in terms of their climate mitigation efficacy. Sources of uncertainty include incomplete GHG measurement and accounting. We recommend focusing on resolving those uncertainties before broadly scaling implementation of those pathways in quantitative emission or sequestration mitigation plans. If appropriate, those pathways should be supported for their cobenefits, such as biodiversity and food security.

Full text

Nature Cimate Change | Voume 14 | Apri 2024 | 402–406 402
nature climate change
Analysis
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
Expert review of the science underlying
nature-based climate solutions
B. Buma 1,2,24 , D. R. Gordon 1,3,24, K. M. Kleisner1, A. Bartuska1,4, A. Bidlack5,
R. DeFries 6, P. Ellis 7, P. Friedlingstein 8,9, S. Metzger10,15,16, G. Morgan11,
K. Novick 12, J. N. Sanchirico13, J. R. Collins 1,1 4, A. J. Eagle 1, R. Fujita1,
E. Holst1, J. M. Lavallee 1, R. N. Lubowski1,17, C. Melikov1,18, L. A. Moore 1,19,
E. E. Oldield 1, J. Paltseva1,20, A. M. Raffeld 1, N. A. Randazzo1,21,22,
C. Schneider1, N. Uludere Aragon1,23 & S. P. Hamburg1
Viable nature-based climate solutions (NbCS) are needed to achieve
climate goals expressed in international agreements like the Paris Accord.
Many NbCS pathways have strong scientic foundations and can deliver
meaningful climate benets but eective mitigation is undermined
by pathways with less scientic certainty. Here we couple an extensive
literature review with an expert elicitation on 43 pathways and nd that at
present the most used pathways, such as tropical forest conservation, have
a solid scientic basis for mitigation. However, the experts suggested that
some pathways, many with carbon credit eligibility and market activity,
remain uncertain in terms of their climate mitigation ecacy. S ources of
uncertainty include incomplete GHG measurement and accounting. We
recommend focusing on resolving those uncertainties before broadly
scaling implementation of those pathways in quantitative emission or
sequestration mitigation plans. If appropriate, those pathways should be
supported for their cobenets, such as biodiversity and food security.
Nature-based climate solutions (NbCS) are conservation, restoration
and improved management strategies (pathways) in natural and work-
ing ecosystems with the primary motivation to mitigate GHG emissions
and remove CO
2
from the atmosphere
1
(similar to ecosystem-based
mitigation2). GHG mitigation through ecosystem stewardship is
integral to meeting global climate goals, with the greatest benefit
coming from near-term maximization of emission reductions, fol-
lowed by CO
2
removal
3
. Many countries (for example, Indonesia, China
and Colombia) use NbCS to demonstrate progress toward national
climate commitments.
Received: 24 April 2023
Accepted: 20 February 2024
Published online: 21 March 2024
Check for updates
1Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY, USA. 2Department of Integrative Biology, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. 3Department of
Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA. 5International Arctic Research Center,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, USA. 6Department of Ecology Evolution and Environmental Biology and the Climate School, Columbia University,
New York, NY, USA. 7The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA. 8Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
9Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique/Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, CNRS, Ecole Normale Superieure/Universite PSL, Sorbonne Universite,
Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France. 10National Ecological Observatory Network, Battelle, Boulder, CO, USA. 11Department of Engineering and
Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 12O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN, USA. 13Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. 14Department of Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA. 15Present address: Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 16Present address: AtmoFacts, Longmont, CO, USA. 17Present address: Lombard Odier Investment Managers,
New York, NY, USA. 18Present address: Ecological Carbon Offset Partners LLC, dba EP Carbon, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 19Present address: San Francisco,
CA, USA. 20Present address: ART, Arlington, VA, USA. 21Present address: NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, USA. 22Present address: University of Maryland,
College Park, MD, USA. 23Present address: Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA. 24These authors
contributed equally: B. Buma, D. R. Gordon. e-mail: bbuma@edf.org
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change | Voume 14 | Apri 2024 | 402–406 403
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
reasonable funding would support development of high-quality carbon
accounting (that is, move to category 1) within 5 years; or category 3, a
<25% chance of development of high-quality carbon accounting within
5 years (for example, due to measurement challenges, unconstrained
leakage, external factors which constrain viability).
If an expert ranked a pathway as categor y 2, they were also asked to
rank general research needs to resolve: leakage/displacement (spillo-
ver to other areas), measuring, reporting and verification (the ability
to quantify all salient stocks and fluxes), basic mechanisms of action
(fundamental science), durability (ability to predict or compensate
for uncertainty in timescale of effectiveness due to disturbances,
climate change, human activity or other factors), geographic uncer-
tainty (place-to-place variation), scaling potential (ability to estimate
impact) and setting of a baseline (ability to estimate additionality over
non-action; a counterfactual). To avoid biasing towards a particular
a priori framework for evaluation of the scientific literature, review-
ers could use their own framework for evaluating the NbCS literature
about potential climate impact and so could choose to ignore or add
relevant categorizations as well. Any pathway in category 1 would not
need fundamental research for implementation; research gaps were
considered too extensive for useful guidance on reducing uncertainty
in category 3 pathways. Estimates of the global scale of likely potential
impact (PgCO
2
e yr
−1
) and cobenefits were also collected from expert
elicitors. See Methods and Supplementary Information for the survey
instrument.
Results
Four pathways with the highest current carbon market activity and
high mitigation potential (tropical and temperate forest conservation
and reforestation; Table 1 and Supplementar y Data), were consistently
rated as high-confidence pathways in the expert elicitation survey.
Other NbCS pathways, especially in the forestry sector, were rated
relatively strongly by the experts for both confidence in scientific basis
and scale of potential impact, with some spread across the experts
(upper right quadrant, Fig. 1). Conversely, 13 pathways were consist-
ently marked by experts as currently highly uncertain/low confidence
(median score across experts: 2.5–3.0) and placed in category 3 (for
example, cropland microbial amendments and coral reef restoration;
The scope of NbCS is narrower than that of nature-based solutions
(NbS) which include interventions that prioritize non-climate benefits
alongside climate (for example, biodiversity, food provisioning and
water quality improvement)
4
. In many cases, GHG mitigation is con-
sidered a cobenefit that results from NbS actions focused on these
other challenges2. In contrast, NbCS are broader than natural climate
solutions, which are primarily focused on climate mitigation through
conservation, restoration and improved land management, generally
not moving ecosystems beyond their unmodified structure, function or
composition
5
. NbCS may involve moving systems beyond their original
function, for example by cultivating macroalgae in water deeper than
their natural habitat.
The promise of NbCS has generated a proliferation of interest in
using them in GHG mitigation plans6,7; 104 of the 168 signatories to the
Paris Accord included nature-based actions as part of their mitigation
plans
8
. Success in long-term GHG management requires an accurate
accounting of inputs and outputs to the atmosphere at scale, so NbCS
credits must have robust, comprehensive and transparent scientific
underpinnings
9
. Given the urgency of the climate problem, our goal
is to identify NbCS pathways with a sufficient scientific foundation to
provide broad confidence in their potential GHG mitigation impact,
provide resources for confident implementation and identify priority
research areas in more uncertain pathways. Evaluating implementa-
tion of mitigation projects is beyond our scope; this effort focuses on
understanding the underlying science. The purpose is not evaluating
any specific carbon crediting protocol or implementation framework
but rather the current state of scientific understanding necessary to
provide confidence in any NbCS.
In service of this goal, we first investigated nine biomes (boreal
forests, coastal marine (salt marsh, mangrove, seagrass and coral reef),
freshwater wetlands, grasslands, open ocean (large marine animal and
mesopelagic zone biomass, seabed), peatlands, shrublands, temperate
forests and tropical forests) and three cultivation types (agroforestry,
croplands and macroalgae aquaculture); these were chosen because
of their identified potential scale of global impact. In this context,
impact is assessed as net GHG mitigation: the CO
2
sequestered or emis-
sions reduced, for example, discounted by understood simultaneous
emissions of other GHG (as when N2O is released simultaneously with
carbon sequestration in cropland soils). From there, we identif ied 43
NbCS pathways which have been formally implemented (with or with-
out market action) or informally proposed. We estimated the scale of
mitigation impact for each pathway on the basis of this literature and,
as a proxy measure of NbCS implementation, determined eligibil-
ity and activity under existing carbon crediting protocols. Eligibility
means that the pathway is addressed by an existing GHG mitigation
protocol; market activity means that credits are actively being bought
under those eligibility requirements. We considered pathways across
a spectrum from protection to improved management to restoration
to manipulated systems, but some boundaries were necessary. We
excluded primarily abiotically driven pathways (for example, ocean
alkalinity enhancement) or where major land use or land-use trade-offs
exist (for example, afforestation)10–12. Of the 43 pathways, 79% are at
present eligible for carbon crediting (sometimes under several meth-
odologies) and at least 65% of those have been implemented (Supple-
mentary Table 1). This review was then appraised by 30 independent
scholars (at least three per pathway; a complete review synthesis is
given in the Supplementary Data).
Consolidation of a broad body of scientific knowledge, with inher-
ent variance, requires expert judgement. We used an expert elicitation
process
13–15
with ten experts to place each proposed NbCS pathway into
one of three readiness categories following their own assessment of the
scientific literature, categorized by general sources of potential uncer-
tainty: category 1, sufficient scientific basis to support a high-quality
carbon accounting system or to support the development of such a
system today; category 2, a >25% chance that focused research and
Table 1 | Credit issuance by NbCS category
NbCS scope NbCS categories Number of
credits issuedb
Forestrya and
land use
REDD+ 445million
Improved forest management 200million
Afforestation/reforestation 59million
Avoided forest conversion 10million
Sustainable grassland management 12million
Wetland restoration 5million
Avoided grassland conversion 700,000
Agriculture Improved irrigation management 400,000
Sustainable agriculture 440,000
REDD stands for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing
countries. The ʻ+ indicates additional forest-related activities that protect the climate, namely
sustainable management of forests and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks. From https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/redd/what-is-redd (accessed
12 March 2024). aConservation of tropical peatlands and agroforestry projects may be
included under some forest protocols. bTotal number of credits issued for selected NbCS
pathways (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use project types) by Climate Action Reserve,
American Carbon Registry, Verra, Gold Standard, Veriied Carbon Standard and California
Air Resources Board as of May 2023. Note that the NbCS identiied by the registries can span
several discrete pathways (for example, afforestation and reforestation) and so the categories
here may not directly align with the speciic NbCS pathways in the expert elicitation. Data
rounded from https://gspp.berkeley.edu/faculty-and-impact/centres/cepp/ projects/
berkeley-carbon-trading-project/offsets-database (accessed 10 May 2023).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change | Voume 14 | Apri 2024 | 402–406 404
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). For the full review, including crediting
protocols currently used, literature estimates of scale and details of
sub-pathways, see Supplementary Data.
The experts assessed 26 pathways as having average confidence
scores between 1.5 and 2.4, suggesting the potential for near-term reso-
lution of uncertainties. This categorization arose from either consensus
amongst experts on the uncertain potential (for example, boreal forest
reforestation consistently rated category 2, with primary concerns
about durability) or because experts disagreed, with some ranking
category 1 and others category 3 (for example, pasture management).
We note that where expert disagreement exists (seen as the spread of
responses in Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1; also see Data availability
for link to original data), this suggests caution against overconfidence
in statements about these pathways. These results also suggest that
confidence may be increased by targeted research on the identified
sources of uncertainty (Supplementary Table 3).
Sources of uncertainty
Durability and baseline-setting were rated as high sources of uncer-
tainty across all pathways ranked as category 2 by the experts (mean
ratings of 3.6 and 3.4 out of 5, respectively; Supplementary Table 3).
Understanding of mechanisms and geographic spread had the lowest
uncertainty ratings (2.1 and 2.3, respectively), showing confidence in
the basic science. Different subsets of pathways had different prioriti-
zations, however, suggesting different research needs: forest-centric
pathways were most uncertain in their durability and additionality
(3.8 and 3.4, respectively), suggesting concerns about long-term
climate and disturbance trajectories. Agricultural and grassland sys-
tems, however, had higher uncer tainty in measurement methods and
additionality (3.9 and 3.5 respectively). Although there were concerns
about durability from some experts (for example, due to sea-level
rise), some coastal blue carbon pathways such as mangrove restora-
tion (mean category ranking: 1.7 (20th to 80th percentile 1.0–2.0))
have higher confidence than others (for example, seagrass restora-
tion: mean category ranking 2.8, 20th to 80th percentile 2.6–3.0)),
which are relatively poorly constrained in terms of net radiative
forcing potential despite a potentially large carbon impact (seagrass
median: 1.60 PgCO
2
e yr
−1
; see Supplementary Data for more scientific
literature estimates).
Scale of impact
For those pathways with lower categorization by the expert elicitation
(category 2 or 3) at the present time, scale of global impact is a potential
heuristic for prioritizing further research. High variability, often t wo
orders of magnitude, was evident in the mean estimated potential
PgCO2e yr−1 impacts for the different pathways (Fig. 1 and Supplemen-
tary Table 2) and the review of the literature found even larger ranges
produced by individual studies (Supplementary Data). A probable cause
of this wide range was different constraints on the estimated potential,
with some studies focusing on potential maximum impact and others
on more constrained realizable impacts. Only avoided loss of tropical
forest and cropland biochar amendment were consistently estimated
as having the likely potential to mitigate >2 PgCO2e yr−1, although bio-
char was considered more uncertain by experts due to other factors
Agroforestry
Avoided benthic disturbance
Boreal forest avoided loss
Boreal forest management
Boreal forest reforestation
Boreal/temperate peat avoided loss
Coral reef avoided loss
Coral reef restoration
Cropland biochar amendment
Cropland compost amendment
Cropland cover cropping
Cropland EMW
Cropland microbial amendments
Cropland reduced/no till/rotations
Cropland to perennial vegetables/crops
Emergent marsh avoided loss
Emergent marsh restoration
Freshwater wetland avoided loss
Freshwater wetland restoration
Grassland adjusted stocking
Grassland compost/fertilization
Grassland fire management
Grassland restoration
Grassland rotational grazing
Macroalgae farming
Mangrove avoided loss
Mangrove restoration
Natural grassland avoided loss
Ocean animal biomass restoration
Ocean mesoplagic fishing limits
Pasture management (irrigation, legumes)
Peatland restoration
Seagrass avoided loss
Seagrass restoration
Shrubland avoided loss
Temperate forest avoided loss
Temperate forest management
Temperate forest reforestation
Tropical forest avoided loss
Tropical forest management
Tropical forest reforestation
Tropical peatland avoided loss
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Scale of estimated impact (PgCO2e yr–1; 20th to 80th credible interval)
Higher uncertainty-category ranking (20th to 80th percentile) – lower uncertainty
Existing protocols/no market activity
Market activity
No existing protocols or market activity
Existing protocols and market activity
Fig. 1 | Mean categorization of each pathway versus scale of estimated
potential impact. Pathways in the upper right quadrant have both high
confidence in the scientific foundations and the largest potential scale of global
impact; pathways in the lower left have the lowest confidence in our present
scientific body of knowledge and an estimated smaller potential scale of impact.
Designations of carbon credit eligibility under existing protocols and market
activity at the present time are noted. Grassland enhanced mineral weathering
(EMW) is not shown (mean category rating 2.9) as no scale of impact was
estimated. See Supplementary Table 1 for specific pathway data. Bars represent
20th to 80th percentiles of individual estimates, if there was variability in
estimates. A small amount of random noise was added to avoid overlap.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change | Voume 14 | Apri 2024 | 402–406 405
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
germane to its overall viability as a climate solution, averaging a cat-
egorization of 2.2. The next four highest potential impact pathways,
ranging from 1.6 to 1.7 PgCO2e yr−1, spanned the spectrum from high
readiness (temperate forest restoration) to moderate (cropland conver -
sion from annual to perennial vegetation and grassland restoration)
to low (seagrass restoration, with main uncertainties around scale of
potential impact and durability).
There was high variability in the elicitors’ estimated potential
scale of impact, even in pathways with strong support, such as tropi-
cal forest avoided loss (20th to 80th percentile confidence interval:
1–8 PgCO2e yr−1), again emphasizing the importance of consistent
definitions and constraints on how NbCS are measured, evaluated
and then used in broad-scale climate change mitigation planning and
budgeting. Generally, as pathway readiness decreased (moving from
category 1 to 3), the elicitor-estimated estimates of GHG mitigation
potential decreased (Supplementary Fig. 1). Note that individual stud-
ies from the scientific literature may have higher or lower estimates
(Supplementary Data).
Expert elicitation meta-analyses suggest that 6–12 responses are
sufficient for a robust and stable quantification of responses
15
. We
tested that assumption via a Monte Carlo-based sensitivity assessment.
Readiness categorizations by the ten exper ts were robust to a Monte
Carlo simulation test, where further samples were randomly drawn
from the observed distribution of responses: mean difference between
the original and the boot-strapped data was 0.02 (s.d. = 0.05) with an
absolute difference average of 0.06 (s.d. = 0.06). The maximum differ-
ence in readiness categorization means across all pathways was 0.20
(s.d. = 0.20) (Supplementary Table 2). The full dataset of responses is
available online (see ʻData availabilityʼ).
Discussion
These results highlight opportunities to accelerate implementation of
NbCS in well-supported pathways and identify critical research needs
in others (Fig. 1). We suggest focusing future efforts on resolving identi-
fied uncertainties for pathways at the intersection between moderate
average readiness (for example, mean categorizations between ~1.5 and
2.0) and high potential impact (for example, median >0.5 PgCO
2
e yr
−1
;
Supplementary Table 1): agroforestry, improved tropical and temper-
ate forest management, tropical and boreal peatlands avoided loss
and peatland restoration. Many, although not all, experts identified
durability and baseline/additionality as key concerns to resolve in
those systems; research explicitly targeted at those specific uncer-
tainties (Supplementary Table 3) could rapidly improve confidence in
those pathways.
We recommend a secondary research focus on the lower ranked
(mean category 2.0 to 3.0) pathways with estimated potential impacts
>1 PgCO
2
e yr
−1
(Supplementary Fig. 2). For these pathways, explicit,
quantitative incorporation into broad-scale GHG management plans
will require further focus on systems-level carbon/GHG understand-
ings to inspire confidence at all stages of action and/or identifying
locations likely to support durable GHG mitigation, for example ref. 16.
Examples of this group include avoided loss and degradation of boreal
forests (for example, fire, pests and pathogens and albedo
16
) and effec-
tive mesopelagic fishery management, which some individual studies
estimate would avoid future reductions of the currently sequestered
1.5–2.0 PgC yr−1 (refs. 17,18). These pathways may turn out to have higher
or lower potential than the expert review suggests, on the basis of indi-
vidual studies (Supplementary Data) but strong support will require
further, independent verification of that potential.
We note that category 3 rankings by expert elicitation do not
necessarily imply non-viability but simply that much more research
is needed to confidently incorporate actions into quantitative GHG
mitigation plans. We found an unsurprising trend of lower readi-
ness categorization with lower pathway familiarity (Supplementary
Fig. 3). This correlation may result from two, non-exclusive potential
causes: (1) lower elicitor expertise in some pathways (inevitable,
although the panel was explicitly chosen for global perspectives,
connections and diverse specialties) and (2) an actual lack of scientific
evidence in the literature, which leads to that self-reported lack of
familiarity, a common finding in the literature review (Supplemen-
tary Data). Both explanations suggest a need to better consolidate,
develop and disseminate the science in each pathway for global utility
and recognition.
Our focus on GHG-related benefits in no way diminishes the sub-
stantial conservation, environmental and social cobenefits of these
pathways (Supplementary Table 4), which often exceed their perceived
climate benefits
1,19–21
. Where experts found climate impacts to remain
highly uncertain but other NbS benefits are clear (for example, biodi-
versity and water quality; Supplementary Table 4), other incentives
or financing mechanisms independent of carbon crediting should
be pursued. While the goals here directly relate to using NbCS as a
reliably quantifiable part of global climate action planning and thus
strong GHG-related scientific foundations, non-climate NbS projects
may provide climate benefits that are less well constrained (and thus
less useful from a GHG budgeting standpoint) but also valuable. Poten-
tial trade-offs, if any, between ecosystem services and management
actions, such as biodiversity and positive GHG outcomes, should be
explored to ensure the best realization of desired goals2.
Finally, our focus in this study was on broad-scale NbCS potential
in quantitative mitigation planning because of the principal and neces-
sary role of NbCS in overall global warming targets. We recognize the
range of project conditions that may increase, or decrease, the rigour
of any pathway outside the global-scale focus here. We did not specifi-
cally evaluate the large and increasing number of crediting concepts
(by pathway: Supplementary Data), focusing rather on the underly-
ing scientific body of knowledge within those pathways. Some broad
pathways may have better defined sub-pathways within them, with a
smaller potential scale of impact but potentially lower uncertainty
(for example, macroalgae harvest cycling). Poorly enacted NbCS
actions and/or crediting methodologies at project scales may result
in loss of benefits even from high-ranking pathways22–24 and attention
to implementation should be paramount. Conversely, strong, careful
project-scale methodologies may make lower readiness pathways
beneficial for a given site.
Viable NbCS are vital to global climate change mitigation but NbCS
pathways that lack strong scientific underpinnings threaten global
accounting by potentially overestimating future climate benefits and
eroding public trust in rigorous natural solutions. Both the review of
the scientific literature and the expert elicitation survey identified
high potential ready-to-implement pathways (for example, tropical
reforestation), reinforcing present use of NbCS in planning.
However, uncertainty remains about the quantifiable GHG miti-
gation of some active and nascent NbCS pathways. On the basis of the
expert elicitation survey and review of the scientific literature, we
are concerned that large-scale implementation of less scientifically
well-founded NbCS pathways in mitigation plans may undermine net
GHG budget planning; those pathways require more study before they
can be confidently promoted at broad scales and life-cycle analyses to
integrate system-level emissions when calculating totals. The expert
elicitation judgements suggest a precautionary approach to scal-
ing lower confidence pathways until the scientific foundations are
strengthened, especially for NbCS pathways with insufficient meas-
urement and monitoring10,24,25 or poorly understood or measured
net GHG mitigation potentials
16,26–28
. While the need to implement
more NbCS pathways for reducing GHG emissions and removing car-
bon from the atmosphere is urgent, advancing the implementation
of poorly quantified pathways (in relation to their GHG mitigation
efficacy) could give the false impression that they can balance ongo-
ing, fossil emissions, thereby undermining overall support for more
viable NbCS pathways. Explicitly targeting research to resolve these
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change | Voume 14 | Apri 2024 | 402–406 406
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
uncertainties in the baseline science could greatly bolster confidence
in the less-established NbCS pathways, benefiting efforts to reduce
GHG concentrations29.
The results of this study should inform both market-based mecha-
nisms and non-market approaches to NbCS pathway management.
Research and action that elucidates and advances pathways to ensure
a solid scientific basis will provide confidence in the foundation for
successfully implementing NbCS as a core component of global GHG
management.
Online content
Any methods, additional references, Nature Por tfolio reporting sum-
maries, source data, extended data, supplementary information,
acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contri-
butions and competing interests; and statements of data and code avail-
ability are available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0.
References
1. Novick, K. A. et al. Informing nature‐based climate solutions for
the United States with the best‐available science. Glob. Change
Biol. 28, 3778–3794 (2022).
2. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. & Maginnis, S. (eds)
Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges
(IUCN, 2016).
3. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
(eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
4. Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of
nature-based solutions to climate change and other global
challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190120 (2020).
5. Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
6. Blaufelder, C., Levy, C., Mannion, P. & Pinner, D. A. Blueprint for
Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets to Meet the Climate Challenge
(McKinsey & Company, 2021).
7. Arcusa, S. & Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S. Snapshot of the carbon
dioxide removal certiication and standards ecosystem
(2021–2022). Clim. Policy 22, 1319–1332 (2022).
8. Seddon, N. et al. Global recognition of the importance of
nature-based solutions to the impacts of climate change
Glob. Sustain. 3, pe15 (2020).
9. Anderegg, W. R. Gambling with the climate: how risky of
a bet are natural climate solutions? AGU Adv. 2,
e2021AV000490 (2021).
10. Gattuso, J. P. et al. Ocean solutions to address climate
change and its eects on marine ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 5,
p337 (2018).
11. Bach, L. T., Gill, S. J., Rickaby, R. E., Gore, S. & Renforth, P.
CO2 removal with enhanced weathering and ocean alkalinity
enhancement: potential risks and co-beneits for marine pelagic
ecosystems. Front. Clim. 1, 7 (2019).
12. Doelman, J. C. et al. Aorestation for climate change mitigation:
potentials, risks and trade‐os. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1576–1591
(2019).
13. Speirs-Bridge, A. et al. Reducing overconidence in the interval
judgments of experts. Risk Anal. 30, 512–523 (2010).
14. Morgan, M. G. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of
decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111,
7176–7184 (2014).
15. Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F. &
Wintle, B. C. A practical guide to structured expert elicitation
using the IDEA protocol. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 169–180 (2018).
16. Anderegg, W. R. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate
mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).
17. Boyd, P. W., Claustre, H., Levy, M., Siegel, D. A. & Weber, T.
Multi-faceted particle pumps drive carbon sequestration in the
ocean. Nature 568, 327–335 (2019).
18. Saba, G. K. et al. Toward a better understanding of ish-based
contribution to ocean carbon lux. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66,
1639–1664 (2021).
19. Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A.
Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity
science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).
20. Soto-Navarro, C. et al. Mapping co-beneits for carbon storage
and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190128 (2020).
21. Schulte, I., Eggers, J., Nielsen, J. Ø. & Fuss, S. What inluences the
implementation of natural climate solutions? A systematic map
and review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, p013002 (2022).
22. West, T. A., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon
emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian
Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24188–24194 (2020).
23. Di Sacco, A. et al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize
carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood
beneits. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1328–1348 (2021).
24. López-Vallejo, M. in Towards an Emissions Trading System in
Mexico: Rationale, Design and Connections with the Global
Climate Agenda (ed. Lucatello, S.) 191–221 (Springer, 2022)
25. Oldield, E. E. et al. Realizing the potential of agricultural soil
carbon sequestration requires more eective accounting.
Science 375, 1222–1225 (2022).
26. Burkholz, C., Garcias-Bonet, N. & Duarte, C. M. Warming
enhances carbon dioxide and methane luxes from Red Sea
seagrass (Halophila stipulacea) sediments. Biogeosciences 17,
1717–1730 (2020).
27. Guenet, B. et al. Can N2O emissions oset the beneits from soil
organic carbon storage? Glob. Change Biol. 27, 237–256 (2021).
28. Rosentreter, J. A., Al‐Haj, A. N., Fulweiler, R. W. & Williamson,
P. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions complicate coastal
blue carbon assessments. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35,
pe2020GB006858 (2021).
29. Schwartzman, S. et al. Environmental integrity of emissions
reductions depends on scale and systemic changes, not sector of
origin. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, p091001 (2021).
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional ailiations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2024
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
Methods
NbCS pathway selection
We synthesized scientific publications for nine biomes (boreal forests,
coastal blue carbon, freshwater wetlands, grasslands, open ocean
blue carbon, peatlands, shrublands, temperate forests and tropical
forests) and three cultivation types (agroforestry, croplands and mac-
roalgae aquaculture) (hereafter, systems) and the different pathways
through which they may be able to remove carbon or reduce GHG
emissions. Shrublands and grasslands were considered as independ-
ent ecosystems; nonetheless, we acknowledge that there is overlap in
the numbers presented here because shrublands are often included
with grasslands5,30–33.
The 12 systems were chosen because they have each been identi-
fied as having potential for emissions reductions or carbon removal at
globally relevant scales. Within these systems, we identif ied 43 path-
ways which either have carbon credit protocols formally established
or informally proposed for review (non-carbon associated credits
were not evaluated). We obtained data on carbon crediting protocols
from international, national and regional organizations and registries,
such as Verra, American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve,
Gold Standard, Clean Development Mechanism, FAO and Nori. We also
obtained data from the Voluntary Registry Offsets Database developed
by the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project and Carbon Direct company
34
.
While we found evidence of more Chinese carbon crediting protocols,
we were not able to review these because of limited publicly available
information. To maintain clarity and avoid misrepresentation, we used
the language as written in each protocol. A full list of the organizations
and registries for each system can be found in the Supplementary Data.
Literature searches and synthesis
We reviewed scientific literature and reviews (for example, IPCC spe-
cial reports) to identify studies reporting data on carbon stocks, GHG
dynamics and sequestration potential of each system. Peer-reviewed
studies and meta-analyses were identified on Scopus, Web of Science
and Google Scholar using simple queries combining the specific
practice or pathway names or synonyms (for example, no-tillage,
soil amendments, reduced stocking rates, improved forest manage-
ment, avoided forest conversion and degradation, avoided mangrove
conversion and degradation) and the following search terms: ‘carbon
storage’, ‘carbon stocks’, ‘carbon sequestration’, ‘carbon sequestra-
tion potential’, ‘additional carbon storage’, ‘carbon dynamics’, ‘areal
extent’ or ‘global’.
The full literature review was conducted between January and
October 2021. We solicited an independent, external review of the
syntheses (obtaining from at least three external reviewers per natural
or working system; see p. 2 of the Supplementary Data) as a second
check against missing key papers or misinterpretation of data. The
review was generally completed in March 2022. Data from additional
relevant citations were added through October 2022 as they were
discovered. For a complete list of all literature cited, see pp. 217–249
of the Supplementary Data.
From candidate papers, the papers were considered if their results/
data could be applied to the following central questions:
(1) How much carbon is stored (globally) at present in the system
(total and on average per hectare) and what is the condence?
(2) At the global level, is the system a carbon source or sink at this
time? What is the business-as-usual projection for its carbon
dynamics?
(3) Is it possible, through active management, to either increase
net carbon sequestration in the system or prevent carbon emis-
sions from that system? (Note that other GHG emissions and
forcings were included here as well.)
(4) What is the range of estimates for how much extra carbon could
be sequestered globally?
(5) How much condence do we have in the present methods to
detect any net increases in carbon sequestration in a system or
net changes in areal extent of that?
From each paper, quantitative estimates for the above questions
were extracted for each pathway, including any descriptive informa-
tion/metadata necessary to understand the estimate. In addition,
information on sample size, sampling scheme, geographic coverage,
timeline of study, timeline of projections (if applicable) and specific
study contexts (for example, wind-break agroforestry) were recorded.
We also tracked where the literature identified trade-offs between
carbon sequestered or CO
2
emissions reduced and emissions of other
GHG (for example, N
2
O or methane) for questions three and five above.
For example, wetland restoration can result in increased CO
2
uptake
from the atmosphere. However, it can also increase methane and N2O
emissions to the atmosphere. Experts were asked to consider the
uncertainty in assessing net GHG mitigation as they categorized the
NbCS pathways.
Inclusion of each pathway in mitigation protocols and the spe-
cific carbon registries involved were also identified. These results are
reported (grouped or individually as appropriate) in the Supplemen-
tary Data, organized by the central questions and including textual
information for interpretation. The data and protocol summaries for
each of the 12 systems were reviewed by at least three scientists each
and accordingly revised.
These summaries were provided to the expert elicitation group
as optional background information.
Unit conversions
Since this synthesis draws on literature from several sources that use
different methods and units, all carbon measurements were standard-
ized to the International System of Units (SI units). When referring
to total stocks for each system, numbers are reported in SI units of
elemental carbon (that is, PgC). When referring to mitigation potential,
elemental carbon was converted to CO
2
by multiplying by 3.67. Differ-
ences in methodology, such as soil sampling depth, make it difficult
to standardize across studies. Where applicable, the specific measure-
ment used to develop each stock estimate is reported.
Expert elicitation process
To assess conclusions brought about by the initial review process
described above, we conducted an expert elicitation survey to consoli-
date and add further, independent assessments to the original litera-
ture review. The expert elicitation survey design followed best practice
recommendations
14
, with a focus on participant selection, explicitly
defining uncertainty, minimizing cognitive and overconfidence biases
and clarity of focus. Research on expert elicitation suggests that 6–12
responses are sufficient for a stable quantification of responses15. We
identified >40 potential experts via a broad survey of leading academ-
ics, science-oriented NGO and government agency publications and
products. These individuals have published on several NbCS pathways
or could represent larger research efforts that spanned the NbCS under
consideration. Careful attention was paid to the gender and sectoral
breakdown of respondents to ensure equitable representation. Of the
invitees, ten completed the full elicitation effort. Experts were offered
compensation for their time.
Implementation of the expert elicitation process followed the
IDEA protocol
15
. Briefly, after a short introductory interview, the sur vey
was sent to the participants. Results were anonymized and standard-
ized (methods below) and a meeting held with the entire group to
discuss the initial results and calibrate understanding of questions.
The purpose of this meeting was not to develop consensus on a sin-
gular answer but to discuss and ensure that all questions are being
considered in the same way (for example, clarifying any potentially
confusing language, discussing any questions that emerged as part of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
the process). The experts then revisited their initial rankings to provide
final, anonymous rankings which were compiled in the same way. These
final rankings are the results presented here and may be the same or
different from the initial rankings, which were discarded.
Survey questions
The expert elicitation survey comprised five questions for each path-
way. The data were collected via Google Forms and collated anony-
mously at the level of pathways, with each respondent contributing
one datapoint for each pathway. The experts reported their familiarity
(or the familiarity of the organization whose work they were rep-
resenting) with the pathway and other cobenefits for the pathways.
The initial question ranked the NbCS pathway by categor y, from
one to three.
• Category 1 was dened as a pathway with sucient scientic
knowledge to support a high-quality carbon accounting system
today (for example, meets the scientic criteria identied in the
WWF-EDF-Oeko Institut and ICAO TAB) or to support the devel-
opment of such a system today. The intended interpretation is
that sucient science is available for quantifying and verifying
net GHG mitigation. Note that experts were not required to ref-
erence any given ‘high-quality’ crediting framework, which were
provided only as examples. In other words, the evaluation was
not intended to rank a given framework (for example, ref. 35) but
rather expert condence in the fundamental scientic under-
standings that underpin potential for carbon accounting overall.
To this end, no categorization of uncertainty was required
(reviewers could skip categorizations they felt were not neces-
sary) and space was available to ll in new categories by indi-
vidual reviewers (if they felt a category was missing or needed).
Uncertainties at this category 1 level are deemed ‘acceptable’,
for example, not precluding accounting now, although more
research may further substantiate high-quality credits.
• Category 2 pathways have a good chance (>25%) that with
more research and within the next 5 years, the pathway could
be developed into a high-quality pathway for carbon account-
ing and as a nature-based climate solution pathway. For these
pathways, further understanding is needed for factors such as
baseline processes, long-term stability, unconstrained uxes,
possible leakage or other before labelling as categor y 1 but the
expert is condent that information can be developed, in 5 years
or less, with more work. The >25% chance threshold and 5-year
timeframe were determined a priori to reect and identify
pathways that experts identied as having the potential to meet
the Paris Accord 2030 goal. Other thresholds (for example,
longer timeframes) could have been chosen, which would
impact the relative distribution of pathways in categories 2 and
3 (for example, a longer timeframe allowed could move some
pathways from category 3 into categor y 2, for some reviewers).
We emphasize that category 3 pathways do not necessarily
mean non-valuable approaches but longer timeframes required
for research than the one set here.
• Category 3 responses denoted pathways that the expert thought
had little chance (<25%) that with more research and within the
next 5 years, this pathway could be developed into a suitable
pathway for managing as a natural solutions pathway, either
because present evidence already suggests GHG reduction is not
likely to be viable, co-emissions or other biophysical feedbacks
may oset those gains or because understanding of key factors is
lacking and unlikely to be developed within the next 5 years. Nota-
bly, the last does not mean that the NbCS pathway is not valid
or viable in the long-term, simply that physical and biological
understandings are probably not established enough to enable
scientic rigorous and valid NbCS activity in the near term.
The second question asked the experts to identify research gaps
associated with those that they ranked as category 2 pathways to
determine focal areas for further research. The experts were asked
to rank concerns about durability (ability to predict or compensate
for uncertainty in timescale of effectiveness due to disturbances,
climate change, human activity or other factors), geographic uncer-
tainty (place-to-place variation), leakage or displacement (spillover
of activities to other areas), measuring, reporting and verification
(MRV, referring to the ability to quantify all salient stocks and fluxes to
fully assess climate impacts), basic mechanisms of action (fundamental
science), scaling potential (ability to estimate potential growth) and
setting of a baseline (ability to reasonably quantify additionality over
non-action, a counterfactual). Respondents could also enter a different
category if desired. For complete definitions of these categories, see
the survey instrument (Supplementary Information). This question
was not asked if the expert ranked the pathway as category 1, as those
were deemed acceptable, or for category 3, respecting the substantial
uncertainty in that rating. Note that responses were individual and so
the same NbCS pathway could receive (for example) several individual
category 1 rankings, which would indicate reasonable confidence from
those experts, and several category 2 rankings from others, which
would indicate that those reviewers have lingering concerns about the
scientific basis, along with their rankings of the remaining key uncer-
tainties in those pathways. These are important considerations, as
they reflect the diversity of opinions and research priorities; individual
responses are publicly available (anonymized: https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.7859146).
The third question involved quantification of the potential for
moving from category 2 to 1 explicitly. Following ref. 14, the respond-
ents first reported the lowest plausible value for the potential likelihood
of movement (representing the lower end of a 95% confidence interval),
then the upper likelihood and then their best guess for the median/most
likely probability. They were also asked for the odds that their chosen
interval contained the true value, which was used to scale responses to
standard 80% credible intervals and limit overconfidence bias
13,15
. This
question was not asked if the expert ranked the pathway as category 3,
respecting the substantial uncertainty in that rating.
The fourth question involved the scale of potential impact from the
NbCS, given the range of uncertainties associated with effec tiveness,
area of applicability and other factors. The question followed the same
pattern as the third, first asking about lowest, then highest, then best
estimate for potential scale of impact (in PgCO2e yr−1). Experts were
again asked to express their confidence in their own range, which was
used to scale to a standard 80% credible interval. This estimate repre-
sents a consolidation of the best-available science by the reviewers.
For a complete review including individual studies and their respective
findings, see the Supplementary Data. This question was not asked if
the expert ranked the pathway as category 3, respecting the substantial
uncertainty in that rating.
Final results
After collection of the final survey responses, results were anonymized
and compiled by pathway. For overall visualization and discussion
purposes, responses were combined into a mean and 20th to 80th
percentile range. The strength of the expert elicitation process lies
in the collection of several independent assessments. Those differ-
ent responses represent real differences in data interpretation and
synthesis ascribed by experts. This can have meaningful impacts on
decision-making by different individuals and organizations (for exam-
ple, those that are more optimistic or pessimistic about any given
pathway). Therefore, individual anonymous responses were retained
by pathway to show the diversity of responses for any given pathway.
The experts surveyed, despite their broad range of expertise, ranked
themselves as less familiar with category 3 pathways than category 1
or 2 (linear regression, P < 0.001, F = 59.6
2, 394
); this could be because of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Nature Cimate Change
Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0
a lack of appropriate experts—although they represented all principal
fields—or simply because the data are limited in those areas.
Sensitivity
To check for robustness against sample size variation, we conducted a
Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of the data on each pathway to generate
responses of a further ten hypothetical experts. Briefly, the extra sam-
ples were randomly drawn from the observed categor y ranking mean
and standard deviations for each individual pathway and appended
to the original list; values <1 or >3 were truncated to those values. This
analysis resulted in only minor differences in the mean categorization
across all pathways: the mean difference between the original and the
boot-strapped data was 0.02 (s.d. = 0.05) with an absolute difference
average of 0.06 (s.d. = 0.06). The maximum difference in means across
all pathways was 0.20 (s.d. = 0.20) (Supplementary Table 2). The results
suggest that the response values are stable to additional responses.
All processing was done in R
36
, with packages including fmsb
37
and forcats38.
Data availability
Anonymized expert elicitation responses are available on Zenodo
39
:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7859146.
Code availability
R code for analysis available on Zenodo
39
: https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.7859146.
References
30. Crop and Livestock Products Database (FAO, 2022);
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
31. Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United
States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
32. Meyer, S. E. Is climate change mitigation the best use of desert
shrublands? Nat. Resour. Environ. Issues 17, 2 (2011).
33. Lorenz, K. & Lal, R. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural
Ecosystems (Springer Cham, 2018).
34. Haya, B., So, I. & Elias, M. The Voluntary Registry Osets Database
(Univ. California, 2021); https://gspp.berkeley.edu/faculty-and-
impact/centers/cepp/projects/berkeley-carbon-trading-project/
osets-database
35. Core Carbon Principles; CCP Attributes; Assessment Framework
for Programs; and Assessment Procedure (ICVCM, 2023);
https://icvcm.org/the-core-carbon-principles/
36. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).
37. Nakazawa, M. fmsb: Functions for medical statistics book
with some demographic data. R package version 0.7.4
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fmsb (2022).
38. Wickham, H. forcats: Tools for working with categorical variables
(factors). R package version 0.5.2 https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=forcats (2022)
39. Buma, B. Nature-based climate solutions: expert elicitation
data and analysis code. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.7859146 (2023).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported through gifts to the Environmental
Defense Fund from the Bezos Earth Fund, King Philanthropies and
Arcadia, a charitable fund of L. Rausing and P. Baldwin. We thank J.
Rudek for help assembling the review and 30 experts who reviewed
some or all of those data and protocol summaries (Supplementary
Data). S.M. was supported by a cooperative agreement between the
National Science Foundation and Battelle that sponsors the National
Ecological Observatory Network programme.
Author contributions
D.R.G. and B.B. conceived of and executed the study design.
D.R.G., K.M.K., J.R.C., A.J.E., R.F., E.H., J.M.L., R.N.L., C.M., L.A.M.,
E.E.O., J.P., A.M.R., N.A.R., C.S. and N.U.A. coordinated and
conducted the literature review. G.M. and B.B. primarily designed
the survey. A. Bartuska, A. Bidlack, B.B., J.N.S., K.N., P.E., P.F.,
R.D. and S.M. contributed to the elicitation. B.B. conducted the
analysis and coding. S.P.H. coordinated funding. B.B. and D.R.G.
were primary writers; all authors were invited to contribute to the
initial drafting.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests. In the interest
of full transparency, we note that while B.B., D.R.G., K.M.K.,
A.B., J.R.C., A.J.E., R.F., E.H., J.M.L., R.N.L., C.M., L.A.M., E.E.O.,
J.P., A.M.R., N.A.R., C.S., N.U.A., S.P.H. and P.E. are employed
by organizations that have taken positions on speciic NbCS
frameworks or carbon crediting pathways (not the focus of this
work), none have inancial or other competing interest in any of
the pathways and all relied on independent science in their
contributions to the work.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version
contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01960-0.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to B. Buma.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks
Camila Donatti, Connor Nolan and the other, anonymous,
reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of
this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com