ReviewHeliyon2024
Nature-based solutions for improving food security: A systematic global review.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NBS) have been promoted as a holistic way to solve a variety of societal issues while benefiting biodiversity at the same time. To date, applications of NBS approaches that help ensure food security have yet been systematically reviewed. In this paper, we critically review the specific NBS for food security, highlighting their limitations, to provide recommendations that promote their applications for improving global food security. We accessed and evaluated publications on four different scholastic databases, and our systematic review of relevant materials indicated that many NBS approaches can be applied to enhance food security dimensions individually or together. However, there is a strong bias towards food availability, and not enough research has been done to link NBS with improvements in food access and utilization. Over 80 % of the reviewed papers were of short-term studies or without specific timeframes, and 25 % offered no information on the economic effectiveness of NBS. Environmental benefits of NBS were explicitly described in about 60 % of these papers, and biodiversity enhancement was measured in only about 10 %. We, therefore, recommend future applications of NBS to safeguard food security be shifted to food access and utilization with careful consultation with local communities to address their specific context, using indicators that are easily measured and managed. Systematic monitoring regimes and robust and diversified financial support systems are also equally important in efforts to successfully implement NBS. Moreover, environmental and societal benefits, especially water productivity and biodiversity, must be incorporated into the planning and design of NBS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.