There is robust evidence and medium agreement supporting the overall feasibility of forest-based adaptation options. Regarding its economic feasibility, some studies  highlight that the net benefits of measures such as reforestation, sustainable forest management and ecosystem restoration outweigh the costs of implementation and maintenance. Yet, another strand of literature observes that limited access to financial resources is a major constraint to forest-based initiatives, especially in the face of upfront investment costs and alternative, more profitable land uses, such as agriculture . In countries with extensive rural areas where forests provide for local communities, government support together with private investments and long-term assurances of maintenance, are considered fundamental for the long-term viability of forest conservation strategies . In rural areas, smallholders can diversify their livelihood and increase household income as a result of improved local forest governance  Similarly, forest and ecosystem restoration has been found to reduce poverty and improve social inclusion and participation, given that ecosystems can be managed jointly and in traditional ways . Robust evidence  links forest-based adaptation to job creation, improved health and recreational benefits, most notably for indigenous, rural and remote communities . However, Chausson et al.  note that frameworks for assessing the cost- effectiveness of adaptation strategies continue to be tailored to conventional, engineered interventions, which fail to capture the broader array of material and non-material benefits that forest-based interventions might bring.
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report