Developing an NbS potential map with an ESG–ecosystem services framework: integrating InVEST carbon storage in Taiwan

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly highlighted in climate adaptation policy, yet spatial planning still lacks operational tools to identify where NbS are most feasible and desirable. This contribution develops an NbS potential mapping framework that combines an ESG perspective with ecosystem-service modelling, and illustrates its first implementation in Taiwan using InVEST carbon storage as a prototype for the Environmental/Ecosystem (E) dimension.

We reinterpret ESG as Ecosystem (services)–Social–Governance and organise the framework into three stages: Identification, Assessment, and Retrospective Validation. In the Identification stage, national land-use data are reclassified into nine categories (forests and conservation areas, agricultural land, residential areas, industrial and commercial zones, infrastructure and utilities, coastal and marine areas, water bodies and river systems, urban green and recreational spaces, and mixed/special use zones). Each category is assigned initial qualitative E, S and G attributes based on environmental sensitivity, social exposure, and governance conditions relevant to climate risk and adaptation.

To move from qualitative “environment” toward quantified natural capital, we implement the E dimension using the InVEST Carbon Storage model. Carbon stocks are estimated for different land-use types and normalised to produce an E indicator that is applied as an additional constraint on the initial E category: within each land-use class, areas with higher carbon storage are flagged as high natural capital. We test this ESG–ecosystem services framework in two contrasting Taiwanese landscapes—a coastal wetland–aquaculture system and a mountain catchment affected by landslide-related hazards—to generate NbS potential maps that highlight combinations of high natural capital, high climate risk, and feasible governance conditions.

For retrospective validation, we compare our ESG land-use definitions and the spatial pattern of NbS potential with published ESG-based environmental scoring and NbS selection studies in similar land-use contexts, to check whether our classification logic and prioritisation are consistent with independent frameworks. Rather than delivering a full national ecosystem-service assessment, this work focuses on the structure of the ESG–ecosystem services framework and a first, carbon-based NbS potential map, designed to be progressively enriched with additional quantified ecosystem services. In future work we plan to refine the framework through structured expert feedback (e.g. a Delphi process), and invite interested researchers to contribute to this co-development.