Rural NbS Scan — TTL Tool Wireframe v0.7

Opportunity Space tab — where the selected NbS can plausibly be implemented in Sierra Leone, with suitability classes, scorecard, and what-if constraint toggles.

Viewing

SUITABILITY SCOPE where this NbS can work VH + H · 18,700 km²

Soft scenario levers

reversible

Operational constraints the Bank could relax. Toggle one off to see how much opportunity space a road or grid investment would unlock — these are reversible what-ifs, not hard limits.

Road access lever

Electrification lever

Δ vs. baseline: +12,400 km² would become viable if road access were available everywhere.

Hard exclusions

masks

Always applied — these cells are removed, not scored, and can't be relaxed by a lever.

Built-up & settlement mask
Open water & wetland mask
Protected areas mask
Slope > 30° mask

Context layers

Descriptive overlays — they characterise the footprint, they don't change suitability.

Production-gap layer

Farming system

Farming-system context: this footprint is mostly tree / perennial and rainfed cropping (set in Variable Config) — the systems agroforestry fits.

Layer

Agroforestry suitability

Sierra Leone · baseline · 5 km

Suit. score Cell area25 km² Rural pop. ADM2

Suitability

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Excluded

Δ Suitability · SSP − baseline

Net gain

Slight gain

Little change

Slight loss

Net loss

Units: ADM0 (national) · ADM2 (local: districts)

Admin boundaries: geoBoundaries / UN OCHA · Suitability: mock

Opportunity fingerprint

Where this NbS could plausibly be implemented.

How footprint is reported: area-based NbS (agroforestry, restoration) are summed as km²; linear / zonal practices (riparian buffers, bunds) are reported as km of line or buffer zone so they aren’t over-counted as blanket area.

Coverage

Total country area72,300 km²

High & very-high suitability18,700 km²

Share of country25.9 %

VH 11k

H 27k

M 28k

L 18k

X 8k

Distributed by suitability class

Country totals split across classes; opp space = VH + H.

Rural population4.3 M30% in opp. space

Smallholder farms~620k36% in opp. space

Production value$480 M / yr50% in opp. space

Avg farm size1.4 ha

VH H M L X

Risk to rural livelihoods (climate)

— hazard exposure of people within the opp. space · need, not asset risk

Of the selected scope, this is the share of land at each risk level for each hazard. Drought and heat shift the most under SSP2-4.5. This is risk to people / livelihoods — for risk to the NbS asset itself, see the Project Risk tab.

None Low Mod High V.High

Erosion risk20% high+

++HIGH

Drought (SPEI)40% high+ → 65% '50

+MED

Flood hazard10% high+

+MED

Heat stress25% high+ → 48% '50

+MED

Combined high+VH risk share26% → 53%

Suitable area lost by 2050−2,600 km² · −14%

What agroforestry can address

Problems present in the opportunity space — and how strongly this NbS responds. Bars show problem-variable distribution; the Likert chip rates response strength.

None Low Mod High V.High Likert: ++ + 0 − −−

Biodiversity loss5% high loss / KBA

++HIGH

Carbon (seq. deficit)40% high+ · ~1.9 Mt C/yr

++HIGH

Rural poverty35% high+ · 1.5M ppl

++HIGH

Gender inequality30% high+ GII

+MED

Food insecurity25% high+ · buffers $240M/yr

++HIGH

Fire riskCaution · est. phase fuel

−CAUTION

Economic archetype

Long Horizon

$200–800 / ha establishment · moderate recurring · 5–10 yr to first income

Patient capital required. Revenue streams: fruit · timber · NTFPs · carbon (eligible).

NbS Comparison tab — multi-NbS comparison matrix built on Opportunity Space metrics.

Comparing

NBS SUITABILITY SCOPEwhere each NbS can work VH + H · 18,700 km²

PRIORITY SCOPEwhere your priorities are most acute VH + H · 4,200 km²

Comparing 4 NbS across each one’s opportunity space · Sierra Leone · baseline + SSP2-4.5 / 2050. 4 NbS

Compare like with like. Agroforestry, forest restoration and water harvesting are area-based (km²). Riparian buffers is a linear / zonal practice (km of corridor) — its footprint isn’t directly comparable, so it’s shown for context but kept out of area-based rankings.

Spatial co-occurrence

— where the selected NbS are simultaneously suitable

Exact combination

Count suitable

Metric \\ NbS

Agroforestry

Perennial tree-crop

LONG HORIZON

Forest restoration

Assisted regeneration

MEDIUM HORIZON

Water harvesting

Soil & water conservation

SHORT HORIZON

Riparian buffers

Floodplain management

MEDIUM HORIZON

Opportunity space

Where the NbS could plausibly be implemented (suitability ≥ H) · share of country.

Suitable area

18,700km²

25.9% of country

14,200km²

19.6%

22,300km²

30.8%

4,100km²

5.7%

Coverage by class

VH 8k · H 11k · M 25k

VH 6k · H 8k

VH 10k · H 12k

VH 1k · H 3k

Who it reaches

Population, farms, production value within each opp. space.

Rural population

1.3M

30% of country rural

0.65M

15%

2.0M

48%

0.34M

Smallholder farms

~220k

36% of country

~90k

15%

~300k

49%

~58k

Production value

$240M/yr

50% of country

$58M/yr

12%

$295M/yr

62%

$48M/yr

10%

Avg farm size

1.4ha

0.9ha

1.4ha

1.6ha

Climate resilience

How the opp. space and hazard exposure change under SSP2-4.5 by 2050.

Δ suitable area · 2050

−14%

−2,600 km²

−4%

−570 km²

−7%

−1,560 km²

+2%

+80 km²

High+VH risk share

26% → 53%

doubles

22% → 35%

+13 pp

31% → 48%

+17 pp

36% → 51%

+15 pp · flood-driven

Dominant hazard

Drought · Heat

Drought

Flood · Erosion

NbS response · Likert

How strongly each NbS responds to development outcomes. ++ very high · + moderate · 0 neutral · − caution.

Erosion mitigation

++HIGH

Drought resilience

+MED

++HIGH

0LOW

Biodiversity

++HIGH

+MED

++HIGH

Carbon mitigation

++HIGH

0LOW

+MED

Rural income

++HIGH

+MED

++HIGH

0LOW

Food security

++HIGH

0LOW

++HIGH

+MED

Fire risk

−CAUTION

+MED

0LOW

Economic profile

Establishment cost, time horizon and revenue streams shape the financing instrument.

Archetype

Long Horizon

Medium Horizon

Short Horizon

Medium Horizon

$/ha establishment

$200–800

$400–1,500

$40–200

$150–500

Time to first income

5–10yr

3–7yr

1–2yr

2–5yr

Revenue streams

fruit · timber · NTFPs · carbon

timber · carbon · NTFPs

crop yield gain · soil

fish · NTFPs · flood reduction

Cost-effectiveness · indicative

Planning-level unit costs from the T6 economic archetype applied to each opportunity space — mock ranges, not a CBA. Area-based NbS only; riparian shown for context (linear).

$ / beneficiary

$180–520

$260–700

$90–300

$150–480*

$ / ha restored

$200–800

$400–1,500

$40–200

per km*

$ / tCO₂e avoided

$8–22

$6–18

$20–60

$14–40*

$ / farmer reached

$320–900

$480–1,300

$150–500

n/a*

indicative * riparian is linear (km of corridor) — not directly comparable on area-based unit costs.

Spatial co-occurrence

— which combinations of NbS are simultaneously suitable (exclusive area, km²)

Each column is an exact overlap set. Agroforestry + Water harvesting is the largest shared opportunity (6.8k km²); all four overlap in the south-east hilly belt (Kenema, Kailahun).

Exclusive area · km²

Agroforestry18.7k

Water harvesting15.1k

Forest restoration12.4k

Riparian buffers5.2k

Pairwise overlap

— size = shared area · colour = priority score

Agro

Water

Forest

Rip.

Agroforestry

—

Water harvesting

—

Forest restoration

—

Riparian buffers

—

Sizeshared area Priority mixVH→L

Agroforestry × Water harvesting is both the largest overlap and the highest-priority — the strongest combined-investment case.

Priority Hotspots tab — scope filter, conceptual priority weights, hotspot map with bivariate view, ranked districts, and intersection panels (suit ∩ hotspot).

Viewing

NBS SUITABILITY SCOPEwhere this NbS can work VH + H · 18,700 km²

PRIORITY SCOPEwhere your priorities are most acute VH + H · 4,200 km²

The map shows the intersection — cells that are both suitable for the NbS and high on your priorities.

Investment priorities

conceptual · live

Start from a priority profile, then fine-tune the weights if needed.

Profile

Pick a preset or a saved profile as a starting point, then fine-tune the weights below.

Climate hazard4 vars · 35%

Drought hazardSPEI intensity

Flood hazard1-in-100 yr depth

Heat-stress hazardWBGT anomaly

Water stressdemand / supply

NbS response (environment)3 vars · 30%

Soil-erosion riskRUSLE soil loss

Carbon-sequestration potentialtCO₂/ha/yr

Biodiversity priorityKBA + intactness

People & production3 vars · 35%

Rural povertyheadcount

Production gapyield shortfall

Agricultural dependency% livelihoods

Equity & inclusionflag · not weighted

Gender inequity — national contextual flag. Shown as an overlay on the map & ranking so it can inform targeting, but it is not weighted into the hotspot score.

Descriptorsfilters · not weighted

Context that describes the area, not problems the NbS resolves. Use them to filter / mask the hotspot view — they never enter the weighted score.

Rural populationdensity mask

Market access≤ 3 h to market

Farm size / smallholdersmallholder areas

Ag. production value$ at stake

Top drivers

Layer

Priority hotspot score

Suitability × priorities · raster

Hotspot score

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Very low / nil

Suitability × Priority

PRIORITY ↑SUITABILITY →

Admin boundaries: geoBoundaries / UN OCHA · Hotspot score: mock

Top hotspots

ranked · Livelihood profile

Kenema

Poverty 54% · drought rising · agro VH suitability

PovertyH ProductionM Pop. dens.M

0.86

Kailahun

Poverty + biodiversity · Gola forest periphery

PovertyH DroughtM Market acc.M

0.82

Mixed rainfed system · climate risk elevated

ProductionM PovertyH Pop. dens.M

0.79

Pujehun

High poverty · low road density

PovertyHFood sec.M

0.75

Bonthe

Coastal · flood-exposed (off in current weights)

PovertyHPopulationM

0.62

Why Kenema is #1

focused ADM2

01Rural poverty headcount 54% — top-quintile nationally (your H priority).
02Falls within agroforestry opportunity space at VH suitability across most parcels.
03Drought exposure moderate–high under baseline (your M priority).
04Production value at risk: $48 M / yr in cocoa & coffee.
05Rural pop. density 110 / km² — beneficiary reach is meaningful (your M priority).

No variable double-counted: climate risk used only here, not also in the suitability MCDA.

Opportunity fingerprint

— intersection

Within the targeted hotspot subset of the opportunity space.

Coverage

Opportunity space18,700 km²

Hotspot intersection4,200 km²

Share of opp. space22.5 %

VH 1.8k

H 2.4k

M 4.5k

L 5.2k

X 4.8k

Distributed by hotspot class

Opp-space totals split across hotspot classes; intersection = VH+H hotspot.

Rural population4.3 M33% in intersection

Smallholder farms~620k46% in intersection

Production value$480 M / yr54% in intersection

Avg farm size1.6 ha

VH H M L X

Risk to rural livelihoods (climate)

— within hotspot intersection · need, not asset risk

Hazard profile narrows in the 4,200 km² hotspot subset — drought and heat much worse here than in the full opp. space.

None Low Mod High V.High

Erosion risk35% high+ (vs 20%)

++HIGH

Drought (SPEI)65% high+ → 88% by '50

+MED

Flood hazard18% high+ (vs 10%)

+MED

Heat stress50% high+ → 80% by '50

+MED

Combined high+VH risk share48% → 78%

Suitable area lost by 2050−920 km² · −22%

NbS response profile

— within hotspot intersection

Likert response strength stays the same, but the underlying problems are more severe here (that’s what makes them hotspots).

None Low Mod High V.High Likert: ++ + 0 − −−

Biodiversity loss12% high loss / KBA (vs 5%)

++HIGH

Carbon deficit60% high+ · ~0.6 Mt C/yr

++HIGH

Rural poverty75% high+ · 880k ppl (vs 35%)

++HIGH

Gender inequality55% high+ GII

+MED

Food insecurity50% high+ · buffers $130M/yr

++HIGH

Fire riskCaution · est. phase fuel load

−CAUTION

Variable Config — sub-tab of Setup.

Constraint types

— how each suitability variable limits where this NbS can go

Suitability variables are grouped by the kind of constraint they impose. Hard exclusions mask cells out entirely; soft scenario levers are reversible what-ifs the Bank could relax (see Opportunity Space).

mask hard exclusion — removes the cell lever soft scenario lever — reversible what-if

Biophysicalcan it grow here

✓Slope mask >30° ✓Soil depth ✓Soil pH ✓Soil organic carbon ✓Annual rainfall ✓Aridity index ✓Temperature ✓Tree cover ✓NDVI ✓Drought (SPEI) ✓Heat stress

Systemis the land available / appropriate

✓Land cover / land-use mask built-up · water ✓Protected-area status mask ✓Open water & wetland mask

Operationalcan we implement it

✓Distance to road lever ✓Electrification lever ✓Market access lever Population density

Farming system

— derived land-system classes that contextualise suitability & priorities

Derived from land cover, livestock density and irrigation data. Scopes the context layers and tailors which descriptors matter — it does not change the suitability rule itself.

Variable configuration

— how each NbS reads each variable · Reduce / Source / Explain

Configuring Overlay all loaded NbS

Variable settings

Expert-curated standard · 23 variables16 after clustering · updated Jun 2026 Standard Admin

Land slope modified

CLUSTER REPRESENTATIVE · 3 VARS BUILT-IN T1 · SPATIAL

What it is

Rate of elevation change across the landscape, expressed in degrees from horizontal. Derived from a 30 m Digital Elevation Model. Shared across all NbS — only the suitability response below changes per NbS.

datasetSRTM v3 · 30 m grain1 km analysis evidenceTier 1 · global standard sensitivitypublic · not sensitive

Why includedfor agroforestry

Slope controls runoff, root anchoring, mechanisation feasibility, and erosion risk for tree-crop establishment. Steep slopes constrain implementation; very flat areas may waterlog.

Suitability responseper NbS · editable

How slope (°) maps to suitability. Each NbS reads the same variable differently — agroforestry favours gentle slopes; steeper ground needs engineering.

Response for scopes the “why”, curve & transformed map only

Raw variableslope · degrees

0°40°+

Transformed→ suitability · agroforestry

Left: the raw input layer. Right: the same layer standardised to a 0–1 suitability score by the selected response function — change the response type or NbS above to see the spatial effect update live. Both clipped to the AOI.

Response type agroforestry Full suitability across a plateau, ramping down at the edges.

Parameter	Value	Unit

Uncertainty ± band on plot

±15%

Shaded ribbon shows the suitability range under input uncertainty. Placeholder — wire to per-variable error model.

Technical Response-curve editing — for technical / super users. Applies to the active NbS only and flags it as Custom settings.

Cluster|r| > 0.7

Slope is a cluster representative for 3 variables (Aspect, Curvature, TWI). See the full correlation matrix, cluster membership and per-member weights in the NbS variables view.

Source

BUILT-INSRTM v3 · 30 m · global · USGS/SRTMGL1_003 · CC0

In useSRTM v3 — global 30 m DEM, resampled to the 1 km analysis grid.

Grainnative 30 m · analysis 1 km (mean resampling; flagged in the resolution audit)

Sensitivitypublic, non-sensitive — no country endorsement required.

A better local dataset is known. Sierra Leone has a 12 m national DEM (SLE-NSDI) not yet catalogued here — upload it to sharpen slope on steep terrain.

“Slope and terrain position are first-order controls on tree-crop establishment and erosion risk.”Recipe note · Agroforestry · Standard · §Biophysical (p. 4)

Variables in the agroforestry formulation

16 of 23 enter the MCDA after correlation clustering. Chosen = cluster representative; collapsed = represented by its rep.

Admin

TechnicalCorrelation matrix, cluster-representative promotion & MCDA weights — for technical / super users.

Correlation & clustering

Chosen — cluster representative (enters MCDA) Collapsed in — represented by its cluster rep Cluster group |r| 0 1.0

Correlation clustering runs per AOI after standardisation. Variables with |r| > 0.7 collapse into one representative to avoid double-weighting. Hover a label to highlight its cluster; hover a cell for the exact r.

Cluster & variable weights Admin

Each cluster representative carries a weight into the MCDA. Adjust cluster importance, or expand to weight individual collapsed members. Weights normalise to 100%.

Add or replace a variable's dataset

Bring your own raster to replace a standard layer, or add a new variable to the formulation. Uploads are validated against the requirements below.

Admin

Drop a dataset here or browse

GeoTIFF (.tif), NetCDF (.nc) or a zipped shapefile

Upload requirements

Format — Cloud-Optimised GeoTIFF preferred; NetCDF or zipped shapefile accepted.
CRS — EPSG:4326 (WGS84) or a defined projection the tool can reproject.
Extent — must cover the country AOI (Sierra Leone); larger is fine, it will be clipped.
Resolution — ≤ 5 km; finer is resampled to the analysis grid. Coarser inputs are flagged in the resolution audit.
Values — single continuous or categorical band; nodata flagged; units documented.
Size — ≤ 2 GB per file. Larger layers: host the layer in cloud storage and supply a URL / asset ID instead.
Licence — you must have the right to use the data; record the source & licence.

After upload the tool runs a validation pass (CRS, extent, nodata, range) and shows a preview before the layer is swapped into the recipe. Placeholder — not wired in v0.

Priority / hotspot variables

— where action matters most · feeds Priority Hotspots (M4)

A different variable set from the suitability recipe. These score need & impact — climate hazard, the benefit an NbS would deliver, and the people & assets exposed — and are combined with suitability only at the hotspot stage. Keeping the two sets separate is what prevents Mode-A double-counting.

Priority & descriptor variables

11 priorities across 4 pillars + 4 descriptors. Priorities are standardised so higher = higher priority, then weighted into the hotspot index; descriptors are context only.

PriorityA problem or need the NbS acts on. Weighted in the hotspot ranking; shown as a slider in Priority Hotspots.

DescriptorContext that describes the area (not a problem the NbS resolves). Usable as a filter / mask, never weighted.

Climate hazardweighted pillar

✓Drought hazard ✓Flood hazard ✓Heat-stress hazard ✓Water stress

NbS response (environment)weighted pillar

✓Soil-erosion risk ✓Carbon-sequestration potential ✓Biodiversity priority

People & productionweighted pillar

✓Rural poverty ✓Production gap ✓Agricultural dependency

Equity & inclusioncontextual flag

✓Gender inequity NATIONAL — CONTEXTUAL

Descriptors (context)filters · not weighted

Rural population Market access Farm size / smallholder Agricultural production value

Gender inequity is held as a national contextual flag — shown alongside the ranking but it does not differentiate the map. Descriptors appear in Priority Hotspots as filter toggles, never as weighted sliders.

Scoring & direction

Each variable is standardised to 0–1. Direction sets which end is "high priority"; thresholds clip extremes. (Suitability response curves do not apply here — priority is a need score, not a fitness score.)

Variable	Direction	Scoring
Drought hazard	drier → higher	percentile
Soil-erosion risk	more → higher	min–max
Rural poverty	poorer → higher	percentile
Production gap	larger → higher	percentile

TechnicalCorrelation clustering & theme weights for the priority set — for technical / super users.

Correlation & clustering

Clustering runs independently on the priority set (poverty, food insecurity & rural population correlate; one represents the cluster). Kept separate from the suitability matrix so the two stages never share variables.

Theme & variable weights Admin

Theme weights set how much each pillar drives the hotspot index. Normalise to 100%.

Climate hazard35%

NbS response (environment)30%

People & production35%

Equity & inclusionflag

Three weighted pillars normalise to 100%. Equity & inclusion (gender inequity) is carried as a contextual flag — shown, not weighted — so it can never silently tilt the ranking.

Drought (SPEI)

What it is

Normalizationraw → 0–1 priority

Higher = more need; ranked within this country.

TechnicalNormalization method & reference frame — for technical / super users.

Method

Direction

Reference frame Only statistical methods use this — it sets the population values are ranked against.

Clip extremes

±2%

Winsorise the tails before scoring so single outliers don't dominate.

Distributionquantile cuts

Ranked within: this country (AOI)

Raw & transformed maps

Raw variableSPEI · index

lohi

Transformed→ priority 0–1

Right: priority score — ranked within this country (AOI). Both clipped to the AOI.

Absolute contextso contrast isn't misread as severity

Source

Next Steps tab — moving from scoping to feasibility and implementation, tailored per NbS / NbS cluster, including cost-benefit.

STAGE 01

Scoping

Where could this NbS work, who does it reach, and which districts are priority hotspots — the analysis in this tool.

You are here

STAGE 02

Pre-feasibility

Ground-truth the hotspots, engage local stakeholders, refine the opportunity with field data and a first cost-benefit view.

STAGE 03

Feasibility & design

Full CBA, safeguards screening, tenure & institutional assessment, and a costed implementation plan.

Later

STAGE 04

Implementation

Financing instrument, delivery partners, M&E framework and a monitoring baseline from this tool's layers.

Later

This tool stops at scoping. The next steps below are indicative pathways, not a feasibility assessment — not all scoped NbS proceed to feasibility, and the tool does not produce one. Use these to commission the right downstream work.

Pathway for…

Next steps are tailored per NbS, or for a stacked NbS cluster where several overlap.

Placeholder · content per NbS / cluster will be authored with the sector team.

Indicative cost-benefit · AgroforestryT6 economic archetype

Est. cost

$200–800

/ ha establishment · moderate recurring

Benefit-cost ratio

1.8–3.2

20-yr horizon, 6% discount · indicative

Payback

5–8 yr

first income from year 5 (fruit / NTFP)

Planning-level figures from the T6 economic archetype applied to the opportunity-space extent — not a CBA. A full cost-benefit analysis with local prices is commissioned at feasibility stage (see methods below).

Cost-effectiveness snapshot · Agroforestry indicative

Planning-level unit costs from the T6 economic archetype over the opportunity-space extent — to size the ask and compare options, not a CBA.

Cost / beneficiary

$180–520

over 20-yr horizon

Cost / ha restored

$200–800

establishment + early upkeep

Cost / tCO₂e avoided

$8–22

above-ground, tier-1

Cost / farmer reached

$320–900

smallholders in footprint

Feasibility methods & tools

Guidance on the valuation & assessment methods to commission downstream for agroforestry — signposts, not prescriptions or endorsements. Choose by decision stage (see proportionality).

Proportionality. Simple methods — benefit transfer, proxy indicators — are sufficient for early go / no-go decisions. Reserve detailed spatial modelling for confirmed high-priority sites, where the added cost is justified by the decision at stake.

Nature-based methods

Integrated methods

Cost-benefit analysis Monetised costs vs. benefits over the project horizon; NPV / BCR. tools: standard CBA spreadsheet, discounting conventions FEASIBILITY

Multi-criteria analysis Weigh non-monetised criteria (equity, biodiversity, resilience) where valuation is contested. tools: MCDA / weighted-scoring frameworks PRE-FEAS

Tool names are quiet references to common practice, not recommendations. The appropriate method set is confirmed with the sector economist at feasibility.

Design step · right-tree-right-place

Tree-based NbS need a species & establishment design before implementation — scoping suitability is necessary but not sufficient.

Species & mixture selectionMatch species and mixtures to site, objective and market — right tree, right place, right purpose; favour diversified mixtures over monocultures.

Establishment feasibilitySeedling supply, nursery capacity, planting calendar, survival risk and early maintenance — the operational reality behind the map.

Future-climate resilienceCheck species choices against mid-century climate envelopes (the SSP layer) so plantings remain viable over the rotation.

This guidance is authored with the MFL sector team — species, biodiversity, diversification and ecosystem-service leads — who own the design standards for tree-based NbS.

Recommended next steps

01Validate priority districts in the fieldGround-truth the top hotspots — confirm suitability and rule out access / tenure blockers.Validate Kenema · Kailahun · Bo = your VH-suitability ∩ hotspot intersectionPRE-FEAS

02Stakeholder & tenure mappingIdentify landholders, customary rights and gender dynamics in candidate landscapes.Scope to the opportunity-space extent & characterisation layersPRE-FEAS

03Full cost-benefit & financing scanDetailed CBA with local prices; match to instrument (grant, concessional, carbon, blended).Starts from the T6 economic archetype estimate aboveFEASIBILITY

04Safeguards & ESG screeningWorld Bank ESF screening; biodiversity & involuntary-resettlement checks.FEASIBILITY

05Set the M&E baselineEstablish the monitoring baseline before implementation so change can be attributed.Baseline = the suitability, hotspot & characterisation layers from this toolIMPLEMENTATION

To be authored with the sector team

Methodsconfirm the downstream valuation / assessment set per NbS

Consultationswhich sector & country teams to engage, and when

Analyses to commissionspecific feasibility studies, with proportionality applied

Design stepspecies / structure design standards (MFL-owned)

Safeguards & FPIC hand-off

Indigenous / community-lands FPIC. Part of the footprint overlaps customary & community lands (flagged in Project Risk · Part B). Free, Prior and Informed Consent and the WB ESF land / Indigenous Peoples standards must be screened before any siting.

This tool flags the trigger and hands off to the safeguards team at pre-feasibility — it does not perform the screening.

Confirm data before feasibility

Two data actions to close out before committing to sites.

Confirm country-endorsed sources for the nationally-sensitive variables — population, poverty, agricultural production value — with Stats SL before publishing district figures.

Data gaps · upload better local data

12 m national DEM (SLE-NSDI) — sharpen slope on steep SE terrain (default is 30 m SRTM).
2024 district poverty surface — replace the 2018 default once the survey round is released.
Updated local road / market network — refine the market-access & road-access layers.

Tailoring to context

Sierra Leone · FSRP For agroforestry in the south-east, the binding constraints are market access and tenure security, not biophysical suitability. Pair establishment grants with road / aggregation investment (see the What-if scenario: +12,400 km² viable with road access). Long payback favours patient or blended capital with a carbon revenue overlay.

Placeholder · country- and NbS-specific guidance to be authored with the sector & country teams.

Project Risk tab — where disasters could damage or destroy the NbS investment itself (asset risk), the WB Climate & Disaster Risk Screening lens. Distinct from risk to rural livelihoods.

Risk that hazards damage or destroy the NbS investment — the WB Climate & Disaster Risk Screening lens. Distinct from risk to rural livelihoods (a need measure — see Opportunity Space).

A Hazards threatening the investment — drought · flood · fire · heat to the establishing NbS asset

Asset risk for…

Asset risk is NbS-specific — a wetland and an agroforestry plot are vulnerable to different hazards.

Overall project-risk rating

HIGH

Area-weighted over the opportunity-space footprint

Mirrors the WB Overall Risk Rating output, area-weighted over the opportunity-space footprint (where this NbS would be invested) — not the whole AOI. Rating = exposure of the NbS asset & supporting infrastructure to the hazards this NbS does not mitigate.

Highest-risk units

ADM2 · ranked

Layer

Project-risk rating · Agroforestry

Sierra Leone · within opportunity space · 5 km

Project-risk rating

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Outside opp. space

Exposure: NbS asset + roads / power

Admin boundaries: geoBoundaries / UN OCHA · Risk rating: mock

Hazards threatening the asset

From T3 — the hazards this NbS does not mitigate but that can damage the asset. Bars show share of the opportunity space at high+ for each.

Exposure

The rating weights hazard intensity by what is exposed:

NbS assetwhere this NbS would be established (its suitable extent)
Roadsaccess for establishment & maintenance
Powersupporting infrastructure near the asset

B Operational feasibility filters — can the investment actually be delivered & sustained here?

These describe whether an NbS can be implemented and maintained — they filter / flag the opportunity space to help rule sites in or out. They are deliberately kept out of the hotspot score so a feasibility blocker can't be silently traded off against need.

Accessibilitywatch

Dry-season road access reaches most of the SE footprint; remote upland cells are seasonally cut off.

Electrificationwatch

Low grid coverage; nursery / processing may need off-grid power. Soft lever — improvable.

Land tenureflag

Predominantly customary tenure; overlaps with community lands — triggers the FPIC safeguard below.

Conflict & fragilityok

No active conflict in the candidate landscapes; standard fragility monitoring applies.

Governance & extensionwatch

Extension reach is thin in the SE — delivery depends on strengthening local services.

Financewatch

Long payback for tree-based NbS favours patient / blended capital; instrument to be matched at feasibility.

Market accesswatch

Remoteness raises aggregation cost; pairing with road / market investment expands viability.

Labourok

Adequate seasonal labour for establishment; competing demands at peak planting noted.

Indigenous / community-lands FPIC safeguard. Part of the footprint overlaps customary & community lands. Free, Prior and Informed Consent and the WB ESF land / Indigenous Peoples standards must be screened before any siting — carried forward to the Next Steps safeguards hand-off.

Feasibility filters screen and flag the opportunity space — they are not hazards to the asset (Part A) and are not added into the Priority-Hotspot score.

Indicative spatial screen — not the full project-level WB Disaster Risk Screening, which is done downstream at pre-feasibility (see Next Steps).

TechnicalHazard weighting & exposure layers — for technical / super users.

Methods · rating construction

Rating = Σ(hazardᵢ × weightᵢ) × exposure, classified into Low → Very High. Hazards are the complement of the NbS mitigation set drawn from T3; weights are per-NbS. Exposure combines asset presence with proximity to roads & power.

Hazard (T3)	Weight	Exposure layer

Mock weights. Confirmed with the DRM specialist at pre-feasibility; not a substitute for the project-level screening.

PLANNED

This rating is designed to become a third scope on Priority Hotspots — a Project-Risk scope filter alongside NbS Suitability Scope and Priority Scope. Not yet wired; left as a forward hook.

Danger Zone tab — restricted, global, destructive methodology and cache controls.

TechnicalExpert-only, team-wide controls — visible because Technical mode is on. TTLs do not need this tab.

Restricted actions

audit-logged

01Invalidate cached suitability surfaces — forces full re-run for the whole teamCACHE
02Add / remove variables from the master schema — affects every recipeSCHEMA
03Change global default weights — resets every TTL's starting pointMETHODOLOGY
04Publish a standard recipe version — promotes a draft to the org defaultMETHODOLOGY
05Delete a saved profile shared with the teamDESTRUCTIVE

All changes are logged in the methodology version log and update T0.last_updated. Per-NbS curve edits do not appear here — they are saved as personal/custom settings in Variable Config.

v0 · controls not yet wired

Visible architectural boundary. Wire to the protected schema-mutation API when the back-end exists.

To Do / Dev Notes — internal living checklist of remaining medium/major work. Not part of the TTL workflow.

Internal Living dev checklist — not for TTLs. What just landed in v0.7, plus remaining medium / major work.

Version log

v0.7Jun 2026 · current

Priorities vs Descriptors split introduced across Variable Config & Priority Hotspots — descriptors filter, never weight.
Priority variables reorganised into 4 weighted pillars (Climate hazard · NbS response · People & production · Equity & inclusion) + a Descriptors group; gender moved to a national contextual flag.
Suitability variables grouped by constraint type (Biophysical · System · Operational) with hard-exclusion vs soft-lever marks.
Per-variable data-source panel + provenance chips (dataset+grain · tier · sensitivity · quote); country-endorsed flag on population / poverty / production; farming-system derived classes.
Opportunity Space: soft levers vs hard masks, production-gap & farming-system context, area-vs-line footprint note.
Project Risk split into Part A (asset hazards) + Part B (operational feasibility filters incl. FPIC) — filters / flags, not scored.
NbS Comparison: like-with-like guard + indicative cost-effectiveness snapshot. Next Steps: cost-effectiveness, country-endorsed-data prompt, FPIC hand-off, data-gap list.
Dropped the “native GEE” framing → “Runs in Python”; tab set + order ratified in AGENTS.md.

v0.6earlier

Project Risk tab added at position 03; risk-to-rural-livelihoods relabel; dual scope bands on Priority Hotspots & NbS Comparison; project-risk rating confined to the opportunity-space footprint.

Backend / Data

MajorAll data is mock. The analytical pipeline (suitability MCDA, climate risk, priority hotspots, project risk) is not yet built — outputs are placeholders.

MediumUncertainty is a placeholder (±band on response curves) — wire to a per-variable error model.

Methodology / Schema

MajorSchema RFC pending sign-off: T3 risk_role + asset_fragility, T2 risk_lens + asset_exposure (see M2b spec). Blocks the Project-Risk hotspot scope. Owner: Brayden.

MajorPriority-variable normalization: lock the default reference frame (AOI-relative percentile vs fixed-where-a-standard-exists). Defines what a hotspot means.

Integration (planned)

MediumAdd Project Risk to Priority Hotspots as a third "Project-Risk scope" filter (depends on schema RFC).

MediumAdd Project Risk to NbS Comparison as an investment-durability dimension.

Configure your scan

1 · Nature-based solutions

2 · Geographic scope

3 · Analysis resolution

4 · Climate

Review your recipe

Variables & recipe

Run the analysis

How to use this tool

Soft scenario levers

Hard exclusions

Context layers

Opportunity fingerprint

Coverage

Distributed by suitability class

Risk to rural livelihoods (climate)

What agroforestry can address

Spatial co-occurrence

Spatial co-occurrence

Pairwise overlap

Investment priorities

Top hotspots

Why Kenema is #1

Opportunity fingerprint

Coverage

Distributed by hotspot class

Risk to rural livelihoods (climate)

NbS response profile

Constraint types

Farming system

Variable configuration

Land slope modified

Variables in the agroforestry formulation

Correlation & clustering

Cluster & variable weights Admin

Add or replace a variable's dataset

Upload requirements

Priority / hotspot variables

Priority & descriptor variables

Scoring & direction

Correlation & clustering

Theme & variable weights Admin

Drought (SPEI)

Pathway for…

Indicative cost-benefit · AgroforestryT6 economic archetype

Cost-effectiveness snapshot · Agroforestry indicative

Feasibility methods & tools

Design step · right-tree-right-place

Recommended next steps

Safeguards & FPIC hand-off

Confirm data before feasibility

Tailoring to context

Asset risk for…

Overall project-risk rating

Highest-risk units

Hazards threatening the asset

Exposure

Methods · rating construction

Global & destructive controls

Restricted actions

v0 · controls not yet wired