Integrated Environmental Projects Benefit Both Nature and Humanity, Study Finds
A recent study has highlighted that environmental projects designed to address biodiversity and climate challenges can simultaneously benefit human communities, particularly when these projects are integrated to achieve multiple objectives. Led by Dr. Trisha Gopalakrishna and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the research underscores the importance of restoring and protecting forests to mitigate climate change, conserve biodiversity, and support the livelihoods of people living in and around these forests.
Traditionally, there has been concern that efforts to capture carbon, enhance biodiversity, and support local communities might conflict, particularly in regions where local populations depend on forest resources for their livelihoods. However, the new study suggests that with careful planning, these goals can be harmonized. By implementing "integrated" plans, which combine all three objectives, the researchers found that it is possible to achieve more than 80% of the desired outcomes across all areas, disproportionately benefiting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.
Using a framework known as Nature's Contribution to People (NCP), Gopalakrishna and her team demonstrated that nature restoration can be aligned with human well-being, reducing socioeconomic inequalities in the process. The study, which focused on India, revealed that 38% to 41% of those affected by these integrated plans belong to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.
The research involved mapping 3.88 million hectares of potential forest restoration areas in India. The findings showed that integrated plans, which aimed at multiple goals, delivered an average of 83.3% of climate crisis mitigation NCP, 89.9% of biodiversity value NCP, and 93.9% of societal NCP compared to plans focused on a single objective.
Dr. Gopalakrishna emphasized the importance of considering human needs in conservation projects, noting that doing so can enhance the efficiency and success of such efforts. She pointed out that environmental projects often fail when they overlook the needs of local communities. For instance, projects focused solely on carbon storage may plant specific tree species and restrict access to forests, while those focused on biodiversity may prioritize the conservation of emblematic species like the Bengal tiger. On the other hand, projects aimed at supporting human livelihoods might prioritize species that provide resources like fuelwood and building materials.
The study found that single-objective plans often fail to deliver benefits in other areas, while integrated plans can achieve multiple goals efficiently. Gopalakrishna advocated for the creation of "multifunctional landscapes," where trees can store carbon, plants can support human survival, and wildlife can thrive, allowing both people and animals to benefit.
The integrated planning approach has been adopted by the UN Development Programme and is being utilized by European conservationists through the INSPIRE initiative to enhance protected area networks in Europe. Gopalakrishna also highlighted the need for greater consideration of equity and gender outcomes in conservation projects, suggesting that this should be the next focus in policy and project development.
The study demonstrates that integrated spatial plans can provide greater societal benefits, particularly to socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, compared to plans focused solely on biodiversity or carbon. Moreover, the study found that these plans offered nearly equal benefits to both men and women in the affected regions. The research calls for a deeper understanding of who benefits and who may be left behind, stressing that equity and gender considerations should be central to future environmental and development projects.