關鍵字：自然解方、亞洲、IUCN 全球標準、生態系分類、成果成熟度;This study examines Nature-based Solutions (NbS) cases in Asia and explores how different cases respond to climate change， disaster risk， biodiversity loss， food security， water security， social and economic development， and human health challenges. In Asia， NbS cases have increased in response to multiple climate and environmental pressures. However， many existing studies focus on single cases， specific ecosystems， or specific benefits. Fewer studies compare Asian NbS cases through a consistent classification and outcome assessment framework. Therefore， this study aims to develop an analytical framework for comparing Asian NbS cases and to examine the feasibility of applying this framework to real case materials. This study has two main objectives. First， it develops a classification framework based on the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions， NbS approach categories， and the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology. The framework classifies cases by Challenge Type， Solution Type， and Realm-Biome-Ecosystem Functional Group. It also draws on the logic of Impact Management Norms to divide outcomes into human-centric outcomes and planet-centric outcomes， and further assesses Measurement Maturity and How-Much Maturity. Second， it applies the framework to a complete dataset of 72 Asian NbS case studies systematically retrieved from the Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Information Platform (AP-PLAT) database to examine how the framework works in practice. The results show that Asian NbS cases cover diverse societal challenges and ecosystem contexts. They are not limited to nature conservation or ecological restoration， but are also applied to urban stormwater management， coastal protection， mangrove restoration， climate-smart agriculture， community forestry， water resource management， and traditional agricultural landscape management. The five Solution Types help explain the different operational logics of the cases， including ecosystem restoration approaches， ecosystem protection approaches， infrastructure-related approaches， issue-specific ecosystem-related approaches， and ecosystem-based management approaches. The study also finds that Measurement Maturity is generally higher than How-Much Maturity. This means that most cases can identify outcome items or indicators， but fewer cases provide clear evidence on the scale， depth， or duration of outcomes. Overall， this study provides an analytical framework for comparing Asian NbS cases and suggests that future NbS research and practice should strengthen outcome quantification， long-term monitoring， and transparency in case documentation.
