Equitable nature-based solutions begin with addressing the root causes of inequity
This study systematically reviews 93 studies of nature-based solutions in southern Africa to identify 32 Social Equity Constraints that hinder equitable outcomes, providing a framework to address root causes of inequity and guide the design of more just and sustainable interventions.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Nature-based solutions are a powerful idea in the fight against climate change. Instead of relying solely on technology to fix environmental problems, these approaches use the natural world itself—planting trees to stop floods, restoring wetlands to filter water, or managing forests to store carbon. The promise is twofold: these projects help the planet heal while also supporting human communities. However, a growing concern among scientists and community leaders is that even well-meaning projects can go wrong. When a new forest is planted or a river is protected, the benefits and the burdens do not always land where they are intended. Sometimes, the people who need help the most end up losing their land, their jobs, or their ability to feed their families, while others reap the rewards. This happens not because the people designing the projects are malicious, but because they often miss the deep, invisible rules of society that determine who gets to participate and who gets left behind.
A team of researchers from the University of Cape Town and a strategic communication firm in South Africa set out to understand exactly how and why these fair intentions turn into unfair results. They focused their attention on southern Africa, a region where nature-based solutions are increasingly common but where historical inequalities run deep. The researchers did not look at every project ever built; instead, they gathered and carefully read ninety-three scientific studies published between 1960 and 2021 that specifically reported negative social impacts or unequal sharing of benefits. They wanted to find the hidden reasons behind these failures. By analyzing the stories and data within these papers, they discovered that the problem is rarely a lack of good intentions. In fact, in eighty-two percent of the cases they studied, the projects had started with a genuine desire to be fair. They had tried to include local voices or protect the vulnerable. Yet, despite these efforts, the outcomes were still unjust.
The researchers found that the groups suffering the most were almost always the same: poor households, women, minority groups, and local communities without strong political power. These groups often lost access to the land and resources they depended on for survival, or they found themselves working harder for less pay. Meanwhile, the benefits of the projects—such as income from tourism or carbon credits—tended to flow to people who already held power, such as local elites, men, or those with better education and connections. The harm was not just about money. It also damaged social bonds, reduced people's ability to make a living, and severed the connection between communities and the natural world they had cared for generations.
To explain why this happens so often, the team mapped out thirty-two specific barriers they called "social equity constraints." These are the contextual factors that block fairness. They found that these barriers fall into eight main categories. One major category involves culture and norms. For example, if a project assumes that everyone values nature in the same way, it might ignore the deep spiritual or family ties a community has to a specific forest, treating it only as a source of timber or carbon. Another category is money and resources. A project might ask a poor family to plant trees that will only pay off in ten years, but if that family needs food today, they cannot afford to wait. The project fails them not because the trees are bad, but because the timing and financial support do not match the reality of poverty.
Governance is another critical piece. The researchers found that when power is handed down to local committees without proper support, it often ends up in the hands of local leaders who already have influence, leaving the poor out of the decision-making process. Similarly, the way projects are funded often works against fairness. Donors and funders frequently demand quick results and simple numbers to prove success, which pushes implementers to skip the slow, difficult work of building trust and ensuring everyone has a real say. This pressure leads to projects that look good on paper but fail to protect the most vulnerable people on the ground. The study also highlighted that information is not shared equally. If the details of a project are only available to those who can read complex documents or speak a specific language, the rest of the community is effectively locked out.
The researchers did not just list these problems; they also gathered recommendations from the studies they reviewed to see how to fix them. The path forward requires a shift in how these projects are designed. It means recognizing that different people value nature in different ways and that a single solution cannot fit every community. It requires funding that is flexible enough to last as long as the community needs it, rather than rushing to meet a short deadline. It means building the capacity of local people to lead the process, not just to follow instructions. Most importantly, it demands that funders and implementers stop assuming that a project is fair just because they asked for permission. True fairness requires actively looking for the hidden barriers that prevent the poor and marginalized from participating and benefiting.
This work serves as a clear warning and a practical guide. It shows that nature-based solutions are not automatically good for everyone. Without paying close attention to the social fabric of a place—the history, the power dynamics, and the daily struggles of its people—these projects risk repeating the very injustices they aim to solve. The researchers conclude that for nature-based solutions to truly work, they must begin by addressing the root causes of inequality. Only by understanding and removing the thirty-two specific barriers they identified can we ensure that the healing of the planet also brings healing to the people who live on it.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.