The Role of Living Shorelines as Estuarine Habitat Conservation Strategies

Bilkovic, Donna Marie; Mitchell, Molly; Mason, Pamela; Duhring, Karen

doi:10.1080/08920753.2016.1160201

Cited by 114 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An exception, however, is when hard eco-engineering promotes the settlement of organisms with a calcium carbonate skeleton (e.g. (Bilkovic, Mitchell, Mason, & Duhring, 2016). Conversely, while soft ecoengineering is advocated as the preferred approach from an ecological perspective Mayer-Pinto et al, 2017), the created habitat foremost needs to provide sufficient coastal protection into the future if this technique is to replace (or complement) artificial defences.…”

Section: Hard Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…barnacles), which can shelter the structure from weathering and erosion through bioprotection (Perkol-Finkel & Sella, 2015). In addition, restoration (defined as the recreation of habitat that was previously in a particular area, Elliott, Burdon, Hemingway, & Apitz, 2007) and habitat creation or enhancement, which is placing a different habitat within an area (Elliott et al, 2007) have both been included under nature-based shorelines (Bilkovic et al, 2016). (Bilkovic, Mitchell, Mason, & Duhring, 2016).…”

Section: Hard Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From grey to green: Efficacy of eco‐engineering solutions for nature‐based coastal defence

Morris

Konlechner

Ghisalberti

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

315

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is increasing the threat of erosion and flooding along coastlines globally. Engineering solutions (e.g. seawalls and breakwaters) in response to protecting coastal communities and associated infrastructure are increasingly becoming economically and ecologically unsustainable. This has led to recommendations to create or restore natural habitats, such as sand dunes, saltmarsh, mangroves, seagrass and kelp beds, and coral and shellfish reefs, to provide coastal protection in place of (or to complement) artificial structures. Coastal managers are frequently faced with the problem of an eroding coastline, which requires a decision on what mitigation options are most appropriate to implement. A barrier to uptake of nature-based coastal defence is stringent evaluation of the effectiveness in comparison to artificial protection structures. Here, we assess the current evidence for the efficacy of nature-based vs. artificial coastal protection and discuss future research needs. Future projects should evaluate habitats created or restored for coastal defence for cost-effectiveness in comparison to an artificial structure under the same environmental conditions. Cost-benefit analyses should take into consideration all ecosystem services provided by nature-based or artificial structures in addition to coastal protection. Interdisciplinary research among scientists, coastal managers and engineers is required to facilitate the experimental trials needed to test the value of these shoreline protection schemes, in order to support their use as alternatives to artificial structures. This research needs to happen now as our rapidly changing climate requires new and innovative solutions to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to an increasingly uncertain future.

show abstract

Section: Hard Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hard Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

From grey to green: Efficacy of eco‐engineering solutions for nature‐based coastal defence

Morris

Konlechner

Ghisalberti

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

315

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, actions related to oyster restoration could increase the width or height of the reef, 57,86 while the cumulative impact of multiple stressors could lead to long-term degradation. 87 When specifying the effect of management actions on ecosystem structure, important considerations include assumptions about the success of habitat restoration, 29,66 temporal trajectories for restoration or degradation, 86,88 and the extent to which the ecosystem services assessment incorporates external drivers, such as sea-level rise. [89][90][91] The second step in an ecosystem service assessment relates change in ecosystem structure to an ecological process that provides a service, referred to as an ecological production function.…”

Section: A Synthetic Framework For Linking Management Actions To Coasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…64 Although awareness in the public domain has increased considerably, implementation of natural and nature-based approaches is still woefully limited in many regions 56,65 and not without its challenges. 29,66 More than 14% of the entire U.S. shoreline has been hardened, and this percentage is growing. 56 On the other side of the world, China's reclamation of coastal land continues at a rapid rate, with the total length of seawalls exceeding the length of the ancient Great Wall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29,69 Several recent reports point to a lack of tools, guidance, and capacity for identifying appropriate protection measures for a particular setting and forecasting which ecosystem services and societal benefits are likely to be gained or lost as a result of management actions. 62,65,66,70 Despite the recent surge in research, critical gaps in the science remain for inspiring and informing broad uptake and implementation of natural and nature-based solutions. In particular, the importance of ecosystems can vary considerably with geomorphic setting, intensity of the hazard, habitat characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and management context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linking social, ecological, and physical science to advance natural and nature‐based protection for coastal communities

Arkema

Griffin

Maldonado

et al. 2017

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in the role that ecosystems play in reducing the impacts of coastal hazards has grown dramatically. Yet the magnitude and nature of their effects are highly context dependent, making it difficult to know under what conditions coastal habitats, such as saltmarshes, reefs, and forests, are likely to be effective for saving lives and protecting property. We operationalize the concept of natural and nature-based solutions for coastal protection by adopting an ecosystem services framework that propagates the outcome of a management action through ecosystems to societal benefits. We review the literature on the basis of the steps in this framework, considering not only the supply of coastal protection provided by ecosystems but also the demand for protective services from beneficiaries. We recommend further attention to (1) biophysical processes beyond wave attenuation, (2) the combined effects of multiple habitat types (e.g., reefs, vegetation), (3) marginal values and expected damage functions, and, in particular, (4) community dependence on ecosystems for coastal protection and co-benefits. We apply our approach to two case studies to illustrate how estimates of multiple benefits and losses can inform restoration and development decisions. Finally, we discuss frontiers for linking social, ecological, and physical science to advance natural and nature-based solutions to coastal protection.

show abstract