Monitoring and Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions in Indonesia: A Critical Review of Indicators, Frameworks, and Knowledge Gaps
Keywords:
nature-based solutions, monitoring and evaluation, indicators, Indonesia, knowledge gapsAbstract
Despite the growing integration of Nature-based Solutions (NbS), such as peatland restoration, mangrove rehabilitation, and urban green infrastructure development, into Indonesian environmental policy, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems still lag behind on-ground execution. This critical narrative review synthesizes 33 Scopus-indexed studies published between 2020 and 2026 to systematically map current M&E frameworks, indicator categories, and overarching knowledge gaps. We find that while international models like the IUCN Global Standard and logic-chain frameworks are frequently cited, they are rarely tailored to Indonesia's local institutional realities. Monitoring across all three ecosystems remains heavily biased toward ecological metrics, leaving social and institutional dimensions under-measured. This deficit is most pronounced in peatland programs. Where economic evaluations are present, a majority of studies (71%) confirm NbS is consistently cost-effective, peaking at an 80% effectiveness rate compared to conventional engineering alternatives. We identify three primary research gaps: the absence of sustained post-implementation tracking, weak social-institutional indicators, and a lack of cross-ecosystem comparative analysis. Rather than proliferating additional frameworks, Indonesia’s NbS agenda urgently requires context-specific, participatory M&E systems that field managers can sustain independently.
References
J. G. C. Martin et al., ‘The nature-based solution implementation gap: A review of nature-based solution governance barriers and enablers’, J. Environ. Manage., vol. 388, p. 126007, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126007.
A. Chausson et al., ‘Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation’, Glob. Change Biol., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 6134–6155, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1111/gcb.15310.
T. W. Yuwati et al., ‘Restoration of Degraded Tropical Peatland in Indonesia: A Review’, Land, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 1170, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.3390/land10111170.
Z. D. Tan, L. R. Carrasco, S. Sutikno, and D. Taylor, ‘Peatland restoration as an affordable nature-based climate solution with fire reduction and conservation co-benefits in Indonesia’, Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 17, no. 6, p. 064028, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac6f6e.
M. Berg et al., ‘Assessing the IUCN global standard as a framework for nature-based solutions in river flood management applications’, Sci. Total Environ., vol. 950, p. 175269, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175269.
A. Rödl and A. Arlati, ‘A general procedure to identify indicators for evaluation and monitoring of nature-based solution projects’, Ambio, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 2278–2293, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s13280-022-01740-0.
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García, ‘A new evaluation framework for nature-based solutions (NBS) projects based on the application of performance questions and indicators approach’, Sci. Total Environ., vol. 787, p. 147615, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147615.
A. P. M. De Lima et al., ‘Framework for Planning and Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions for Water in Peri-Urban Areas’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, p. 7952, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14137952.
A. B. Paxton et al., ‘Evidence on the performance of nature-based solutions interventions for coastal protection in biogenic, shallow ecosystems: a systematic map’, Environ. Evid., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 28, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s13750-024-00350-5.
M. Vicarelli et al., ‘On the cost-effectiveness of Nature-based Solutions for reducing disaster risk’, Sci. Total Environ., vol. 947, p. 174524, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174524.
J. G. C. Martin, A. Scolobig, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, W. Liu, and J. Balsiger, ‘Catalyzing Innovation: Governance Enablers of Nature-Based Solutions’, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 1971, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13041971.
M. Taufik, M. Haikal, M. T. Widyastuti, C. Arif, and I. P. Santikayasa, ‘The Impact of Rewetting Peatland on Fire Hazard in Riau, Indonesia’, Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 2169, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15032169.
M. E. Harrison et al., ‘Impacts of fire and prospects for recovery in a tropical peat forest ecosystem’, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 121, no. 17, p. e2307216121, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2307216121.
C. Ward et al., ‘Smallholder perceptions of land restoration activities: rewetting tropical peatland oil palm areas in Sumatra, Indonesia’, Reg. Environ. Change, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 1, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10113-020-01737-z.
R. Rumondang, F. Feliatra, T. Warningsih, and D. Yoswati, ‘Sustainable management model and ecosystem services of mangroves based on socio-ecological system on the coast of Batu Bara Regency, Indonesia’, Environ. Res. Commun., vol. 6, no. 3, p. 035008, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ad2d01.
D. R. Richards, B. S. Thompson, and L. Wijedasa, ‘Quantifying net loss of global mangrove carbon stocks from 20 years of land cover change’, Nat. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4260, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18118-z.
S. D. Sasmito et al., ‘Half of land use carbon emissions in Southeast Asia can be mitigated through peat swamp forest and mangrove conservation and restoration’, Nat. Commun., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 740, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-55892-0.
L. Ruan, M. Yan, L. Zhang, X. Fan, and H. Yang, ‘Spatial-temporal NDVI pattern of global mangroves: A growing trend during 2000–2018’, Sci. Total Environ., vol. 844, p. 157075, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157075.
M. F. Adame et al., ‘All tidal wetlands are blue carbon ecosystems’, BioScience, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 253–268, May 2024, doi: 10.1093/biosci/biae007.
A. F. M. Zain, D. O. Pribadi, and G. S. Indraprahasta, ‘Revisiting the Green City Concept in the Tropical and Global South Cities Context: The Case of Indonesia’, Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 10, p. 787204, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.787204.
A. Lakshmisha, A. F. Nazar, and H. Nagendra, ‘Nature based solutions in cities of the global South—The “where, who and how” of implementation’, Environ. Res. Ecol., vol. 3, no. 2, p. 025005, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1088/2752-664X/ad53cf.
E. K. Nassary, B. H. Msomba, W. E. Masele, P. M. Ndaki, and C. A. Kahangwa, ‘Exploring urban green packages as part of Nature-based Solutions for climate change adaptation measures in rapidly growing cities of the Global South’, J. Environ. Manage., vol. 310, p. 114786, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114786.
Md. Esraz‐Ul‐Zannat, A. Dedekorkut‐Howes, and E. A. Morgan, ‘A review of nature‐based infrastructures and their effectiveness for urban flood risk mitigation’, WIREs Clim. Change, vol. 15, no. 5, p. e889, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1002/wcc.889.
K. Zhou et al., ‘Urban flood risk management needs nature-based solutions: a coupled social-ecological system perspective’, Npj Urban Sustain., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 25, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s42949-024-00162-z.
P. Taillardat, B. S. Thompson, M. Garneau, K. Trottier, and D. A. Friess, ‘Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration’, Interface Focus, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 20190129, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129.
R. L. Chazdon, N. Norden, R. K. Colwell, and A. Chao, ‘Monitoring recovery of tree diversity during tropical forest restoration: lessons from long-term trajectories of natural regeneration’, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., vol. 378, no. 1867, p. 20210069, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0069.
P. B. McKenna, A. M. Lechner, L. Hernandez Santin, S. Phinn, and P. D. Erskine, ‘Measuring and monitoring restored ecosystems: can remote sensing be applied to the ecological recovery wheel to inform restoration success?’, Restor. Ecol., vol. 31, no. 1, p. e13724, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1111/rec.13724.
M. Jurjonas, C. A. May, B. Cardinale, S. Kyriakakis, D. R. Pearsall, and P. J. Doran, ‘The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration’, People Nat., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4–19, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1002/pan3.10558.
K. Hölscher et al., ‘Strategies for mainstreaming nature-based solutions in urban governance capacities in ten European cities’, Npj Urban Sustain., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 54, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s42949-023-00134-9.
B. Kiss, F. Sekulova, K. Hörschelmann, C. F. Salk, W. Takahashi, and C. Wamsler, ‘Citizen participation in the governance of nature‐based solutions’, Environ. Policy Gov., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 247–272, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1002/eet.1987.
L. Maniraho, M. Frietsch, S. Sieber, and K. Löhr, ‘A framework for drivers fostering social-ecological restoration within forest landscape based on people’s participation. A systematic literature review’, Discov. Sustain., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 26, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s43621-023-00141-x.
S. Roe et al., ‘Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country’, Glob. Change Biol., vol. 27, no. 23, pp. 6025–6058, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1111/gcb.15873.
S. Villamayor-Tomas et al., ‘Developing countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions’, Commun. Earth Environ., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 214, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s43247-024-01356-0.
