GCRI · Biodiversity Nexus
Restoration and nature-based solutions
Restoration assists the recovery of degraded ecosystems, and nature-based solutions use ecosystems to address societal challenges such as flooding, heat and water supply. Both are expanding in policy and finance, but their effects are often assumed rather than measured. This page sets out how restoration and nature-based solutions are monitored, how their effectiveness is evaluated against a credible counterfactual, and what decision holders need before they commit land, money and time.
Restoration and nature-based solutions in seven parts.
- 01The questionRestoration and nature-based solutions: how the risk develops
- 02CouplingsRestoration can deliver gains in several domains, if designed for them
- 03Reports, standards and contributionsRestoration evidence and verification
- 04IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 05SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 06DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 07Core questionsWhat experts ask
Restoration and nature-based solutions: how the risk develops.
Monitoring and effectiveness. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Recovery takes time
Vegetation can return within years, but soils, species composition and ecosystem functions often take decades, and some may not recover. Early metrics such as tree cover say little about whether an ecosystem is on a path toward its reference.
Wrong place, wrong species
Planting trees in natural grasslands, savannas or peatlands can damage biodiversity and water supply. Monocultures and non-native species store less carbon, support fewer species and can fail under drought or pests.
Leakage and reversal
Protecting or restoring one area can displace clearing elsewhere. Fire, drought, tenure disputes and changing incentives can reverse gains, so the value of carbon and biodiversity credits depends on how leakage and permanence are handled.
Benefits and costs fall unevenly
Restoration can secure water, fuel and income, or it can exclude people from land they depend on. Outcomes depend on tenure, consent and benefit sharing as much as on ecology.
Habitat condition in the Amazon Basin.
Vegetation, land cover and plant growth over the Amazon Basin, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Habitat condition, for this page
About this layer
- Evidence
- Observed (clouds leave gaps)
- Source
- MODIS Terra EVI (NASA LANCE)
- Provider
- NASA LANCE
- Licence
- NASA open data
- Vintage
- daily; Satellite index; clouds leave gaps
- Newest at build
- 2026-10-13
- Resolution
- about 250 m grid
- Uncertainty
- Satellite vegetation index for the 8 days to the date shown, a habitat condition indicator; not a measure of species or biodiversity.
- Reached through
- gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov, only after you allow the live map
About this layer
- Evidence
- Modelled (latest year GIBS publishes)
- Source
- MODIS Terra and Aqua land cover (MCD12Q1) (NASA LP DAAC)
- Provider
- NASA LP DAAC
- Licence
- NASA open data
- Vintage
- yearly; Satellite classification; latest year GIBS publishes
- Newest at build
- 2024-01-01
- Resolution
- about 500 m grid
- Uncertainty
- Satellite land cover classes for the year shown, including croplands; a classification with known errors, not a farm register.
- Reached through
- gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov, only after you allow the live map
About this layer
- Evidence
- Modelled (latest 8-day period GIBS publishes)
- Source
- MODIS Aqua GPP (MYD17) (NASA LP DAAC)
- Provider
- NASA LP DAAC
- Licence
- NASA open data
- Vintage
- 8-day; Satellite-driven model; latest 8-day period GIBS publishes
- Newest at build
- 2026-09-30
- Resolution
- about 500 m grid
- Uncertainty
- Model estimate of carbon taken up by plants over the 8-day period shown; an indicator of growth, not harvest or production.
- Reached through
- gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov, only after you allow the live map
About this layer
- Evidence
- Observed
- Source
- VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance (NASA LANCE)
- Provider
- NASA LANCE
- Licence
- NASA open data
- Vintage
- daily; Satellite image
- Newest at build
- 2026-10-14
- Resolution
- about 250 m grid
- Uncertainty
- Satellite image. Satellite or model raster as the provider publishes it. Clouds, swath gaps and retrieval error leave gaps and noise; values are indicators, not measurements at a place.
- Reached through
- gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov, only after you allow the live map
About this layer
- Evidence
- Observed (clouds and overpass timing leave gaps)
- Source
- VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS) (NASA LANCE FIRMS)
- Provider
- NASA LANCE FIRMS
- Licence
- NASA open data
- Vintage
- daily; Satellite detection; clouds and overpass timing leave gaps
- Newest at build
- 2026-10-13
- Resolution
- about 500 m grid
- Uncertainty
- Satellite hot-spot detections for the day shown, including gas flares and industrial heat; not a confirmed fire, an incident report or a warning.
- Reached through
- gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov, only after you allow the live map
About this layer
- Evidence
- Observed (clouds leave gaps)
- Source
- VIIRS Global Flood Product (NASA LANCE)
- Provider
- NASA LANCE
- Licence
- NASA open data
- Vintage
- daily; Satellite detection; clouds leave gaps
- Newest at build
- 2026-10-14
- Resolution
- about 250 m grid
- Uncertainty
- Satellite detection; clouds leave gaps. Satellite or model raster as the provider publishes it. Clouds, swath gaps and retrieval error leave gaps and noise; values are indicators, not measurements at a place.
- Reached through
- gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov, only after you allow the live map
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
Habitat condition, framed on the Amazon Basin.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Data: NASA GIBS · ASTER GDEM · Blue Marble · © OpenStreetMap contributors · Natural Earth · NASA EONET · NASA JPL OPERA DIST-ALERTSources and licences
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA’s Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA’s Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA’s Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA’s Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- MODIS land products (vegetation indices, gross primary production, land cover), NASA LP DAAC and LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- VIIRS near-real-time products (flood, land surface temperature, snow cover, corrected reflectance), NASA LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), VIIRS 375 m active fire product, NASA LANCE; vector tiles via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA (ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003, NASA LP DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). Cite as: NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Spacesystems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team (2019). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003. doi:10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003. NASA open data
- Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Public domain
- © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), via NASA GIBS (coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). ODbL
- Blue Marble, NASA Earth Observatory; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Context on the globe and flat map: coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names from NASA GIBS reference layers (OpenStreetMap data, ODbL, © OpenStreetMap contributors); Blue Marble imagery as an optional base; 3D terrain and the elevation read-out from the ASTER GDEM elevation colour index (5 m to 200 m classes, exaggerated for legibility). Boundaries are drawn as published and imply no position on any territory.
- Live events: NASA Earth Observatory Natural Event Tracker (EONET); events are indicative and keep their original source links.
- Live: NASA EONET Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Observed (EO): NASA JPL OPERA DIST-ALERT (contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data 2026). We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA’s Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA’s Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- NASA GIBS: We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA’s Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA’s Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- Optional layers (6 sources in the layer list: live, forecast, observed and context) print their provider credit on the map and here when switched on; forecasts are model output and derived indices are estimates.
Layers and dates
- Enhanced vegetation index, rolling 8 days: MODIS Terra EVI, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
- Land cover type (IGBP), yearly: MODIS Terra and Aqua land cover (MCD12Q1), NASA LP DAAC · 2024
- Gross primary production, 8-day total: MODIS Aqua GPP (MYD17), NASA LP DAAC · 30 Sep 2026
- True colour: VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
- Active fires and thermal anomalies: VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS), NASA LANCE FIRMS · 13 Oct 2026
- Flood water, 3-day composite: VIIRS Global Flood Product, NASA LANCE · 14 Oct 2026
Restoration can deliver gains in several domains, if designed for them.
| Domain | How it couples here | What to watch |
|---|---|---|
| Water | Restored floodplains and forests reduce flood peaks and improve quality. See water, food and ecosystem links. | Flood peak reduction measured downstream |
| Food | Agroforestry and soil restoration can raise yields; poorly sited planting can displace farming. | Yield and livelihood outcomes |
| Health | Urban green space reduces heat; wetland restoration can change vector habitats. | Heat exposure change |
| Energy | Restored watersheds reduce reservoir sedimentation. | Sediment inflow to reservoirs |
UN Environment Assembly resolution 5/5 (2022) gave an agreed definition of nature-based solutions; the IUCN Global Standard (2020) sets eight criteria for designing and verifying them; the Society for Ecological Restoration’s principles and standards (Gann and others, 2019) define restoration practice. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration runs from 2021 to 2030.
Ecosystem condition account.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Ecosystem condition account
Restoration and nature-based solutions · Wetland complex · Accounting year 4
- Extent change▼ 4pct of openingWatch
- Condition index0.570 to 10.06Watch
- Species of concern10recorded
- Restoration under management420haNormal
Condition indicators
| Water level regime | 0.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| Native vegetation cover | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| Invasive species pressure | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Connectivity | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
Condition index
Restoration evidence and verification.
Evaluations of restoration outcomes are designed for the Evidence Brief series, including failures. Monitoring evidence would follow NS-11 of the proposed Nexus Standards. The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) issues no credits and verifies no offsets. Useful contributions: long-term monitoring of restored sites with baselines.
Model restoration and nature-based solutions as a system. Run the cascade.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Biodiversity and nature risk standards: the hazards it names, the systems and sectors that carry the loss, the controls that dampen it and the data that observe it. Choose the components, pick an initiating hazard and step through the cascade. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every coupling weight is a stated assumption you can change. A teaching model, not a forecast, an assessment or a certification. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Hazards
- Deforestation
- Biodiversity loss (set off downstream)
- Soil erosion (set off downstream)
- Land-system change boundary transgression (set off downstream)
- Amazon rainforest dieback (set off downstream)
- Slope slide (set off downstream)
- Flash flood (set off downstream)
- Zoonotic spillover event (set off downstream)
- Wildfire (set off downstream)
- Emerging arbovirus outbreak (set off downstream)
- Malaria resurgence (set off downstream)
Systems and couplings
- Biodiversity and nature risk standards
- Climate risk standards Feedback
- Health risk standards Cascade
- Food and agriculture risk standards Dependency
- Environmental degradation hazard standards Shared hazard records
Controls
NS-0Constitution and principlesNS-1The UNI and the artefact catalogue (grammar v0.2: domain, sector, region and environment segments)NS-3Risk record UNIs (grammar, legacy crosswalk, allocation authority)NS-3bDataset and product metadata profile (STAC, DCAT, PROV-O)NS-5Figure, map and visualisation standard (with the UI/UX kit)NS-9Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-11Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NRS-N5Biodiversity and nature risk and resilienceNRS-H65Hazard family: Planetary boundary transgressions (NHS-1 planet.boundary)NRS-H27Hazard family: Biodiversity and species stress (NHS-1 eco.species)NRS-H26Hazard family: Land and wetland degradation (NHS-1 eco.land)NRS-H28Hazard family: Climate-state shifts (NHS-1 eco.climate-state)NRS-H64Hazard family: Ecosystem regime shifts (NHS-1 eco.regime-shift)
Observation
- GBIF occurrence API and downloads (listed for reference)
- World Database on Protected and Conserved Areas (listed for reference)
- Global Forest Watch tree cover loss (Hansen/UMD) and alerts (listed for reference)
- ESA WorldCover 10 m land cover (listed for reference)
- Copernicus Land Monitoring Service products (listed for reference)
- Red List Index
- Forest area as a proportion of total land area
- Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity covered by protected areas
Example geography
- Pacific Island states: 150 hexagonal cells
- Vegetation disturbance alerts, 30 m (OPERA DIST-ALERT), NASA GIBS
- Surface soil moisture (SMAP), NASA GIBS
- Night lights tonight, outages (VIIRS Day/Night Band), NASA GIBS
- Rain rate, last half hour (IMERG), NASA GIBS
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area under restoration | hectares by intervention type | annual | Programme and national reporting | REPORTED |
| Survival of planted or regenerating stems | percent of stems surviving | per monitoring visit | Field plots | OBSERVED |
| Vegetation structure recovery | canopy height and cover relative to reference | annual | Lidar and optical satellites | ESTIMATED |
| Similarity of species composition to reference | dimensionless similarity index | per survey | Field surveys and environmental DNA | OBSERVED |
| Effect against a counterfactual | difference in outcome units with confidence interval | per evaluation | Matched comparison or difference-in-differences | ESTIMATED |
| Flood peak attenuation | cubic metres per second at a reference point | per event | Hydrological modelling and gauges | MODELLED |
| Consent and benefit-sharing status | documented status per project | per project | Project governance records | DECLARED |
The sector signature of restoration and nature-based solutions.
The sectors restoration and nature-based solutions touches and how strongly they depend on each other: what a study has to observe and model together.
Signature
Biodiversity and its partners
Biodiversity gives pollination and soils to food (0.6), watershed regulation to water (0.5) and zoonotic spillover and medicines to health (0.4).
W · E · I · F · H · B
- Sectors
- 4 of 6
- Relations
- 6 of 15
- Coupling
- 0.46 share of total
Strongest relations in play
- Food → Biodiversity · land conversion0.6
- Water → Food · irrigation0.8
- Water → Biodiversity · environmental flows0.6
- Food → Health · nutrition0.7
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| FAO Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM) | Registry and geospatial platform for restoration initiatives under the UN Decade | Free and open, attribution |
| Global Forest Watch and Global Forest Change | Tree cover gain and loss for checking restoration sites | Free and open, attribution |
| GEDI lidar and canopy height products | Vegetation structure for tracking recovery | Public domain; free and open |
| Protected Planet (WDPA and WD-OECM) | Area boundaries for context and comparison-site selection | Free for non-commercial use, terms of use |
| Verra and Gold Standard project registries | Project documents, monitoring reports and issued credits | Public records, terms of use |
| National restoration commitments and Bonn Challenge reports | Pledged and reported areas and approaches | Public records |
How restoration and nature-based solutions is modelled, measured and tested.
The model, its assumptions, its data and its uncertainty, in the form a scientist or engineer would check. Structures follow published methods. The values drawn are illustrative, not findings.
Earth observation chain
How a satellite or sensor record becomes evidence on restoration and nature-based solutions, and where each step adds uncertainty.
- 01 · Acquireorbit, sensor and revisitUncertainty: gaps from cloud and orbit
- 02 · Calibrateradiometric and geometricUncertainty: sensor drift
- 03 · Correctatmosphere and terrainUncertainty: aerosol and slope assumptions
- 04 · Retrieve or classifythe variable or the classUncertainty: model and training error
- 05 · Validateagainst ground truthUncertainty: sample design and size
- 06 · Publishwith error bars and lineageUncertainty: stated, never hidden
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Biodiversity Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Environment ministries and restoration programme leads | Where to restore, with which approach, and how to report progress on the restoration target | Suitability layers, reference ecosystems, monitoring results with labels |
| Municipal and water authorities | Whether a nature-based solution can replace or complement grey infrastructure for flood, heat or water supply | Effectiveness evidence with a counterfactual, hydrological modelling, maintenance needs |
| Funders, investors and credit buyers | Whether a project delivers additional, durable outcomes and fair benefit sharing | Counterfactual evaluation, permanence and leakage evidence, consent records |
| Communities and Indigenous land holders | Whether to enter a restoration agreement and on what terms | Expected outcomes and their uncertainty, benefit and tenure terms, access to monitoring |
Outputs this topic produces
- Restoration evaluation guides with counterfactual designs
- Monitoring protocols pairing remote sensing with field plots
- Effectiveness evidence notes for nature-based solutions
- Site suitability layers that keep tree planting out of grasslands and peat
What experts ask.
Restoration scientists and practitioners return to questions of design and proof.
- What is the restoration aiming for: a historical reference, a functioning novel system, or a specific service?
- What would have happened without the intervention, and how is that counterfactual established?
- Which outcomes, ecological and social, are monitored, for how long, and by whom?
- How durable are the results under climate change, land pressure and changing ownership?
- Who benefits and who bears the costs, including communities whose land use is affected?
Why outcomes vary so widely.
Ecological recovery depends on whether the causes of degradation have been removed, whether seed sources and species can return, whether soils and hydrology are intact, and on time. Projects that plant trees on land still subject to grazing or fire, or that rewet wetlands without restoring flows, often fail quietly. Recovery of structure can be fast while recovery of composition and function takes decades.
Nature-based solutions add a second test: whether the intervention delivers a service, such as lower flood peaks or reduced erosion, reliably enough to be relied upon. Their performance varies with site, scale and extreme events, and it often improves as the ecosystem matures. Honest evaluation therefore separates ecological outcomes, service outcomes and social outcomes, and reports each with its uncertainty.
How the evidence is built, and where it stops.
- 01
Counterfactual design
Comparison with matched control sites or before-after-control-impact designs, through causal inference. Good controls are hard to find and baselines are often missing.
- 02
Long-term monitoring
Repeated measures of vegetation, species, soils and hydrology. Monitoring often ends when project funding does.
- 03
Remote sensing of recovery
Satellite time series track canopy and wetness. They cannot confirm species composition.
- 04
Participatory evaluation
Community-reported outcomes capture social effects. They need consistent methods and attention to whose voice is heard.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Causal inference and impact evaluationProtected area effectiveness · Restoration and payment programme evaluationApplied here
- 02Ecology and biodiversity scienceSpecies distribution modelling · Population trend and viability analysisApplied here
- 03Earth observation and remote sensingForest loss and disturbance alerts · Wetland and mangrove dynamicsApplied here
- 04Hydrology and water scienceEnvironmental flow assessment · Flood regulation by wetlands and forestsApplied here
- 05Spatial statistics and geostatisticsBias-corrected distribution surfaces · Hotspots of change and threatApplied here
- 06Complex systems and agent-based modellingEarly warning of regime shifts · Food-web and co-extinction networksApplied here
Where this page’s references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
- UNEA resolution 5/5, Nature-based solutions for supporting sustainable development (UN Environment Assembly, 2022)
- IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions, first edition (IUCN, 2020)
- Gann and others, International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration, second edition, Restoration Ecology 27 (2019)
- UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 (UNEP and FAO)
- NS-11, Verification and monitoring, a proposed standard
Questions and answers.
What is a nature-based solution?
Why compare against a counterfactual?
Is tree planting always good for biodiversity?
Does the platform verify restoration projects?
How long should restoration be monitored?
Are failed projects included?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GCRISend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGCRISee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a method, a dataset or a question.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.