Search

Nature‐based solutions (NbS)—solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature—have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade‐offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.

1. Recent findings suggest that the colonization of habitat patches may be affected by the quality of surrounding patches. For instance, patches that lack predators may be avoided when located near others with predators, a pattern known as risk contagion. Alternatively, predator avoidance might also redirect dispersal towards nearby predator‐free patches resulting in so‐called habitat compression. However, it is largely unknown how predators continue to influence these habitat selection behaviours at increasing distances from outside of their own habitat patch. In addition, current information is derived from artificial mesocosm experiments, while support from natural ecosystems is lacking. 2. This study used bromeliad landscapes as a natural model system to study how oviposition habitat selection of Diptera responds to the cues of a distant predator, the carnivorous elephant mosquito larva. 3. We established landscapes containing predator‐free bromeliad habitat patches placed at increasing distances from a predator‐containing patch, along with replicate control landscapes. These patches were then left to be colonized by ovipositing bromeliad insects. 4. We found that distance to predators modulates habitat selection decisions. Moreover, different dipteran families had different responses suggesting different habitat selection strategies. In some families, predator‐free patches at certain distances from the predator patch were avoided, confirming risk contagion. In other families, these patches received higher numbers of colonists providing evidence of predator‐induced habitat compression. 5. We confirm that effects of predators in a natural ecosystem can extend beyond the patch in which the predator is present and that the presence or absence of remote predator effects on habitat selection depends on the distance to predators. The notion that perceived habitat quality can depend on conditions in neighbouring patches forces habitat selection studies to adopt a landscape perspective and account for the effects of both present and remote predators when explaining community assembly in metacommunities.

The current narrow focus on afforestation in climate policy runs the risk of compromising long-term carbon storage, human adaptation and efforts to preserve biodiversity. An emphasis on diverse, intact natural ecosystems — as opposed to fast-growing tree plantations — will help nations to deliver Paris Agreement goals and much more.

Background Despite experiencing higher rates of physical and mental health conditions compared with the general population, people with intellectual disability face inequitable access to healthcare services. Improving education of healthcare professionals is one way to reduce these inequalities. Objective To determine how intellectual disability content is taught within Australian nursing schools. Design A two-phase audit of Australian nursing curricula content was conducted using an interview and online survey. Setting Nursing schools Australia-wide providing pre-registration courses. Participants For Phase 1, course coordinators from 31 nursing schools completed an interview on course structure. Teaching staff from 15 schools in which intellectual disability content was identified completed an online survey for Phase 2. Methods Methods used to teach intellectual disability content and who taught the content were audited using an online survey. Results Across the 15 schools offering intellectual disability content, lectures were the most common teaching method (82% of units), followed by tutorials (59%), workshops (26%), then other methods (e.g. e-learning; 12%). Approximately three-quarters of intellectual disability teaching used some problem-and/or enquiry-based learning. Only one nursing school involved a person with intellectual disability in delivering teaching content. Six (19%) participating schools identified staff who specialise in intellectual disability, and seven (23%) identified staff with a declared interest in the area. Conclusion While some nursing schools are using diverse methods to teach intellectual disability content, many are not; as a result, nursing students may miss out on acquiring the attributes which enable them to address the significant health inequalities faced by this group. A specific deficit was identified relating to inclusive teaching and clinical contact with people with intellectual disability.