Nature-based solutions and urban biodiversity conservation in the Global South

Urban areas face significant environmental challenges, requiring integrated solutions. As urbanization increasingly impacts biodiversity, cities must contribute to its conservation as per global goals. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are widely adopted to tackle urban challenges. However, evidence for their success in urban biodiversity conservation remains weak. Although NbS are defined by using native biodiversity for net ecosystem services benefits, many NbS projects feature exotic and invasive species. We conducted a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis, following PRISMA guidelines, on 67 studies published in English (2013-2023) from the Global South to assess urban NbS biodiversity outcomes across 83 unique cities. Only 55 studies evaluated biodiversity outcomes, with just 43% identifying specific flora or fauna. The NbS types included blue-green infrastructure, urban green spaces, urban forests (each 22%), and green roofs (18%). Our analysis revealed a critical methodological inadequacy: measuring biodiversity co-benefits with pre- and post-implementation data or evidence was rare. Crucially, not one study included necessary baseline assessments to effectively measure biodiversity gains. Furthermore, native biodiversity, mentioned as a co-benefit, was often poorly described. Through our systematic literature review, we found 27 studies mentioning use or presence native species and 16 studies mentioning exotic species in the NbS implemented. We found that including an ecologist in the author teams positively influenced the reporting of specific species (p<0.05). In the absence of robust data, our ability to integrate NbS into global conservation goals is weakened. Our synthesis highlights key gaps, best-practices and recommendations to strengthen native biodiversity considerations in NbS in the global south. • Analysis of 55 papers on NbS focusing on biodiversity outcomes from the Global-South. • Majority of the studies showed positive impacts of NbS on biodiversity. • NbS also provided co-benefits to climate and societal outcomes. • We provide framework for assessing biodiversity dimensions of NbS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecological Indicators
Published
2026-01-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2026.114627
Primary Topic
Urban Green Space and Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Nature-based solutions and urban biodiversity conservation in the Global South

Ravi Jambhekar, Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Priya Ranganathan, Dilip G. T. Naidu et al.
Ecological Indicators
Urban Green Space and Health
article

Nature-based solutions and urban biodiversity conservation in the Global South

Ravi Jambhekar, Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Priya Ranganathan, Dilip G. T. Naidu, Swarnika Sharma, Gayatri Bakhale, Ryan Satish, Kadambari Deshpande
article en

Abstract

Urban areas face significant environmental challenges, requiring integrated solutions. As urbanization increasingly impacts biodiversity, cities must contribute to its conservation as per global goals. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are widely adopted to tackle urban challenges. However, evidence for their success in urban biodiversity conservation remains weak. Although NbS are defined by using native biodiversity for net ecosystem services benefits, many NbS projects feature exotic and invasive species. We conducted a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis, following PRISMA guidelines, on 67 studies published in English (2013-2023) from the Global South to assess urban NbS biodiversity outcomes across 83 unique cities. Only 55 studies evaluated biodiversity outcomes, with just 43% identifying specific flora or fauna. The NbS types included blue-green infrastructure, urban green spaces, urban forests (each 22%), and green roofs (18%). Our analysis revealed a critical methodological inadequacy: measuring biodiversity co-benefits with pre- and post-implementation data or evidence was rare. Crucially, not one study included necessary baseline assessments to effectively measure biodiversity gains. Furthermore, native biodiversity, mentioned as a co-benefit, was often poorly described. Through our systematic literature review, we found 27 studies mentioning use or presence native species and 16 studies mentioning exotic species in the NbS implemented. We found that including an ecologist in the author teams positively influenced the reporting of specific species (p<0.05). In the absence of robust data, our ability to integrate NbS into global conservation goals is weakened. Our synthesis highlights key gaps, best-practices and recommendations to strengthen native biodiversity considerations in NbS in the global south. • Analysis of 55 papers on NbS focusing on biodiversity outcomes from the Global-South. • Majority of the studies showed positive impacts of NbS on biodiversity. • NbS also provided co-benefits to climate and societal outcomes. • We provide framework for assessing biodiversity dimensions of NbS.

Ecological IndicatorsVol. 183
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (IN), Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IN)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Urban Green Space and Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.