• Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, innovations in coastline management with natural and nature-based features (nnbf): lessons learned from three case studies.

www.frontiersin.org

  • 1 Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD, United States
  • 2 Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, United States
  • 3 Department of Civil Engineeering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States
  • 4 Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States
  • 5 Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, United States
  • 6 San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, United States
  • 7 South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, San Francisco, CA, United States
  • 8 US Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, TX, United States
  • 9 Texas A&M University atGalveston, Galveston, TX, United States
  • 10 Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
  • 11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), San Francisco, CA, United States
  • 12 Arcadis, Long Island City, NY, United States
  • 13 US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, United States
  • 14 San Francisco Estuary Partnership, San Francisco, CA, United States
  • 15 Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
  • 16 Deltares, Delft, Netherlands
  • 17 Institute of Environmental Sciences CML, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
  • 18 US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, LA, United States
  • 19 Texas General Land Office, Austin, TX, United States

Coastal communities around the world are facing increased coastal flooding and shoreline erosion from factors such as sea-level rise and unsustainable development practices. Coastal engineers and managers often rely on gray infrastructure such as seawalls, levees and breakwaters, but are increasingly seeking to incorporate more sustainable natural and nature-based features (NNBF). While coastal restoration projects have been happening for decades, NNBF projects go above and beyond coastal restoration. They seek to provide communities with coastal protection from storms, erosion, and/or flooding while also providing some of the other natural benefits that restored habitats provide. Yet there remain many unknowns about how to design and implement these projects. This study examines three innovative coastal resilience projects that use NNBF approaches to improve coastal community resilience to flooding while providing a host of other benefits: 1) Living Breakwaters in New York Harbor; 2) the Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study; and 3) the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project in San Francisco Bay. We synthesize findings from these case studies to report areas of progress and illustrate remaining challenges. All three case studies began with innovative project funding and framing that enabled expansion beyond a sole focus on flood risk reduction to include multiple functions and benefits. Each project involved stakeholder engagement and incorporated feedback into the design process. In the Texas case study this dramatically shifted one part of the project design from a more traditional, gray approach to a more natural hybrid solution. We also identified common challenges related to permitting and funding, which often arise as a consequence of uncertainties in performance and long-term sustainability for diverse NNBF approaches. The Living Breakwaters project is helping to address these uncertainties by using detailed computational and physical modeling and a variety of experimental morphologies to help facilitate learning while monitoring future performance. This paper informs and improves future sustainable coastal resilience projects by learning from these past innovations, highlighting the need for integrated and robust monitoring plans for projects after implementation, and emphasizing the critical role of stakeholder engagement.

1 Introduction

There is a growing need to protect shorelines from coastal flooding due to accelerating numbers of floods due to sea-level rise ( Sweet et al., 2018 ) and a rapid increase in billion-dollar coastal storm disasters ( NRC 2014 ; Smith 2020 ). Sea-level rise in particular is predicted to have much larger impacts to coastal communities during the remainder of this century and into the future ( IPCC 2021 ). Traditional approaches to coastal protection largely have relied on “gray” infrastructure, such as seawalls, levees, and breakwaters, which may reduce the risk of flooding but may have adverse ecological impacts ( Bilkovic and Mitchell 2013 ) and alter physical dynamics resulting in downstream erosion ( de Schipper et al., 2020 ). In response, management strategies in the United States (US) and elsewhere have evolved and often incorporate natural, or “green,” approaches such as living shorelines ( Gittman et al., 2014 ; Sutton-Grier et al., 2015 ). Interest in infrastructure projects with natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for tackling these coastal resilience challenges is rapidly expanding. New initiatives are helping address this demand, including Engineering with Nature (EWN) from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), “Building with Nature” in Europe ( Van Slobbe et al., 2013 ), and the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC; The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure, 2018 ). The EWN Atlas volumes 1 and 2 ( Bridges et al., 2018 ; Bridges et al., 2021 ) present over 100 projects from around the world that integrate natural processes with engineering approaches. Project descriptions emphasize operational efficiencies, the use of natural processes to maximize benefits, and collaborations with partners and stakeholders.

Coastal ecosystem restoration, often with a goal of restoring fisheries, water quality benefits, and/or key habitat features has been occurring for decades, some of it at quite large scales ( DeAngelis et al., 2020 ). More recent NNBF efforts (which are also sometimes called “hybrid” infrastructure approaches) on the other hand differ in that they tend to have a focus on providing specific coastal resilience benefits, typically involving both habitat restoration components to the design as well as other engineering components ( Sutton-Grier et al., 2015 ). These NNBF projects are innovative in that they are not attempting to restore a fully functioning ecosystem, but instead are designed to restore very specific ecosystem functions for coastal resilience (such as erosion reduction and/or flood protection) while potentially providing some additional benefits. Additional NNBF hallmarks include a limited geographic setting, often near large human populations dependent on anticipated coastal resilience benefits, and constraints on budget. The critical human dimension involved in NNBF projects translates to community engagement in the outcomes and designs of the projects. Together, these NNBF characteristics are much more likely to push a project towards meaningful risk mitigation while also enhancing ecological and/or social resilience.

However, there are still many unknowns about the broader enterprise of NNBF-based coastal resilience, spanning design, funding, policy, co-production, implementation, and long-term monitoring and learning. Traditional gray infrastructure has been used to prevent flooding and erosion for decades and, as a result, there are standard design criteria for projects and a permitting system that is designed to easily and quickly provide project approval ( Sutton-Grier et al., 2015 ). In contrast to traditional coastal gray infrastructure, NNBF projects are more complex and challenging to design and implement, since they tend to be multifunctional with several goals and are often more dynamic due to the natural components of the projects (e.g., shifting sediments, vegetation changes) rather than being a static structure, and key questions remain as to how to design, fund, and permit projects. This is particularly important as communities and agencies increasingly look to incorporate NNBF into their shoreline management plans. In fact, the USACE has recently been given guidance for “equal consideration” of economic, social and environmental categories in their project planning and evaluation ( US Army Corps of Engineers, 2021 ).

One particular shortcoming of past NNBF projects has been limited stakeholder engagement. A great deal of the literature focused on community engagement in the context of coastal resilience has centered around disaster preparedness, rather than the specific conditions relevant to NNBF efforts. More than 2 decades ago, Mileti (1999) documented the challenges of externally designed hazard-mitigation strategies. Mileti (1999) noted the significant shift in understanding that these projects are not just a combination of the physical environment with engineering and infrastructure mitigation, but that communities are also central to identifying and implementing successful solutions. This shift towards less hierarchical planning was evident in varying degrees following the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey on the Gulf Coast and extended to participatory modeling ( Hemmerling et al., 2020 ), appreciation for multi-stakeholder participatory planning efforts ( Dunning 2020 ), and the critical value of local and traditional ecological knowledge in prioritizing data collection and modeling and decision-making frameworks ( Nichols et al., 2019 ). Stakeholder engagement that reaches “hard-to-reach” and underrepresented communities is particularly important to avoid unintended consequences of NNBF. For example, there are now several high-profile examples of “green gentrification,” such as East Boston Greenway ( Anguelovski and Connolly 2021 ), Chicago’s 606 rails-to-trails ( Rigolon and Németh 2018 ), and New York High Line ( Wolch et al., 2014 ). These projects led to rapid commercial and property development, escalating property values and eventual displacement of vulnerable community members. NNBF solutions can be more equitable when engagements reach vulnerable communities, infrastructure is designed with these communities’ input, and funds are distributed among these communities along with other tangential communities ( Heckert and Rosan, 2016 ). The examples presented here highlight the growing role of stakeholder engagement in disaster preparedness and planning, even though examples of community involvement are more limited in the case of NNBF focused projects.

In this study, we analyze three case studies of innovative NNBF coastal resilience projects on different US coastlines and coming from widely contrasting initiatives and sources of funding. These examples showcase the diverse ways that NNBF projects are imagined and implemented, with different features, designs, engineering strategies, funding sources, and stakeholder engagement. Our goal is to synthesize insights and lessons learned from these projects to inform future efforts and add to a growing knowledge base for NNBF implementation (e.g., Narayan et al., 2016 ; Morris et al., 2018 ; Vuik et al., 2018 ) similar to guidance for gray infrastructure.

The case studies were presented at a series of web panels from which we developed the case study descriptions and assessed keys to success and remaining challenges. The three case studies are 1) Living Breakwaters in New York (NY) Harbor, 2) the Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Feasibility Study (Coastal Texas (TX) Study), and 3) South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project in San Francisco Bay, California (CA) ( Figure 1 ). We begin by summarizing these innovative projects, all of which have created or will create in-water habitat within coastal natural/human resilience projects. We focus on the innovations to coastal design, the important role of stakeholder engagement in all three projects, and funding implementation for each project and then assess common themes that emerged. Within each theme, we discuss tips for success and/or areas of progress, as well as remaining challenges and knowledge gaps for future work.

www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 1 . Overview map of project locations.

A series of web panels was held in October and November 2020 entitled “Innovations in Nature-Based Systems for Coastal Protection” as part of Coastlines & People (CoPe) Research Coordination Network (RCN) funded by the US National Science Foundation. The web panels were recorded and can be accessed at https://www.umces.edu/cope/events . The final list of web panel titles and panelists, and Steering Committee members, is provided in Table 1 . The focus of these panels was initially developed by the Steering Committee, with the intention of featuring one project along each of the continental US’s ocean coastlines (East, West, Gulf) and one international project. Steering Committee members identified potential projects in each geographic region and contacted relevant partners to help select panelists. The goal was to select large-scale projects with diverse approaches that were not yet completely constructed and had willing panel participants. While there are many other projects we could have selected, we feel that the insights gained from three case studies selected highlight emerging themes that are broadly applicable to other NNBF projects.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 1 . Steering Committee Members: Cindy Palinkas [University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES)]; Philip Orton (Stevens Institute of Technology); Michelle Hummel (University of Texas at Arlington); William Nardin, Matthew Gray, Ming Li, Lora Harris (UMCES); Ariana Sutton-Greir (University of Maryland College Park).

The Steering Committee and panelists co-developed the focus and initial content of each panel, which followed the same structure of ∼30 min of introductory presentations by panelists followed by ∼45 min of discussion moderated by a Steering Committee member and including attendees as active participants. We focused these discussions on implementation and design, funding, and stakeholder engagement; from our perspective, these aspects make NNBF projects unique relative to gray infrastructure and are often the most challenging. We used a structured analysis approach and asked panelists to comment on these aspects, highlighting successes and challenges, as well as lessons learned from their experiences. More than 700 people registered for the series, with ∼200–300 attending the live sessions, from a variety of fields (e.g., academia; local, state, and federal agencies; non-profits; private industry) and geographies.

Using content shared prior to and during the panels, the Steering Committee developed descriptions for each case study and synthesized lessons learned across all panels. These were refined during a meeting that included all panelists and the Steering Committee and informed the rest of the paper. The first panel focused on the Sand Motor project in Netherlands, which is well described in the first volume of the EWN Atlas ( Bridges et al., 2018 ) and other publications (e.g., Stive et al., 2013 ; Brière et al., 2018 ; Luijendijk and van Oudenhoven 2019 ; de Schipper et al., 2020 ). Rather than repeating those details, we have chosen to omit it as a specific case study and instead focus on the other three projects. These three projects (described below) are in different phases of development. The Living Breakwaters project in New York Harbor has obtained funding and worked with stakeholders to refine the design plan; its construction began in August 2021. The Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Project in the Gulf of Mexico is still in the study phase, awaiting submission to Congress for authorization of federal funding. If authorized, it will then proceed to the design and implementation phases. South Bay Salt Ponds in San Francisco Bay is the most mature project, having completed the initial phase of implementation in 2014. This project has a robust adaptive management plan, so that results from the first phase informs project designs and the science program for subsequent phases, including an established program for stakeholder engagement and long-term plans for monitoring and performance assessments.

3 Case Study Descriptions

3.1 living breakwaters—new york harbor.

The Living Breakwaters project is being built in the waters of Raritan Bay (Lower New York Harbor) along the southernmost part of Staten Island’s eastern shoreline ( Figure 2 ). The project area is a shallow estuary that has historically supported commercial fisheries and shell fisheries. The area was heavily impacted by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, which damaged or destroyed an unprecedented number of homes and businesses and caused loss of life and significant harm to the local economy. In response, a design competition, Rebuild by Design, was launched by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to “couple innovation and global expertise with community insight to develop implementable solutions to the region’s most complex needs” ( Grannis et al., 2016 ) ( http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/our-work/sandy-projects ). The Living Breakwaters project resulted from a winning entry to this competition, with the competition and initial design phase occurring in 2013–2014.

www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 2 . (A) The Living Breakwaters project will construct a series of breakwaters in Raritan Bay, offshore of Staten Island. (B) The breakwaters are designed to provide habitat for marine life, including oysters. (C) Sample breakwaters (shown in gray) include a main breakwater plus “reef streets” angled outward. These were tested using computational fluid dynamics modeling to evaluate and optimize designs for avoiding scour and sedimentation.

3.1.1 Innovative Coastal Design

The Living Breakwaters project innovates by integrating risk reduction, ecological enhancement, and social resilience ( Tschirky et al., 2018 ). The project consists of approximately 2,500 linear feet (∼760 m) of nearshore “breakwaters,” or partially submerged rubble-mound structures located between 790 and 1,800 ft (∼240 and 550 m, respectively) from shore ( Figures 2A,B ). With regards to risk reduction, the project addresses both event-based and long-term shoreline erosion to preserve or increase beach width and provides wave attenuation to improve safety and prevent damage to buildings and infrastructure. The breakwaters are designed to reduce the height of wind-driven waves reaching buildings and roads to less than 3 ft (∼1 m) during a 100-year storm event with up to 18 inch (∼45 cm) of sea-level rise (SLR). They are not designed to reduce storm surge but instead cause wind waves to break further offshore, reducing wave run-up onto land and potentially also reducing the effect of waves on the surge (termed “wave setup”). Even as the breakwaters are more frequently submerged by storm surges with higher SLR, hydrodynamic modeling indicates that they will continue to provide wave attenuation ( Marrone et al., 2019 ). The project also includes one-time sand replenishment to enhance beach width along the narrowest stretch of shoreline. Extensive computational fluid dynamics modeling and scaled physical laboratory modeling was utilized to optimize design, ranging from evaluation of the effectiveness of the entire set of breakwaters to reduce erosion and accrete beach over time, down to design of individual breakwaters to avoid scour and sediment accretion ( Figure 2C ; Marrone et al., 2019 ).

In addition to risk reduction, the project is also meant to increase the diversity of aquatic habitats, especially hard-structured habitats that can function much like the historical oyster reefs that once existed in Raritan Bay. In particular, the breakwaters were designed as rubble-mound structures with outer layers consisting of armor stones of varying sizes and ecologically enhanced concrete armor units that provide textured surfaces to promote biological activity and species recruitment. The structures also include “reef streets,” narrowly-spaced rocky protrusions on the ocean side of the breakwaters, to increase habitat diversity ( Marrone et al., 2019 ).

The benefits of detached breakwaters for coastal protection have been known for decades (e.g., Chasten et al., 1993 ), and oyster reefs have been gaining appreciation as a new NNBF option (e.g., Piazza et al., 2005 ; Reguero et al., 2018 ). However, their combination, the urban setting, and the social components of LB are innovations on these concepts. The project uses education, outreach, and workforce training to spread awareness about harbor restoration activities and to encourage stewardship of the harbor. It also aims to increase physical and visual access to the shoreline and nearshore waters for enhanced recreational use.

3.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement

The community-based design process engaged a range of stakeholders such as regional experts, government entities, elected officials, issue-based organizations, local groups and individuals. Stakeholder engagement during the Rebuild by Design Competition led to improved understanding of current vulnerability and future threats, while at the same time raising public expectations about grantees meeting grand challenges with constrained budgets ( Grannis et al., 2016 ). After LB was selected as winner of the Rebuild by Design Competition, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) formed in 2015. The CAC intended to serve in a community-based advisory role to the project while leaving additional input from the public during public engagements and workshops. The NY Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery “encouraged applications from all variety of individuals and organizations in order to represent the diverse community of Staten Island and the region who the project will serve” ( https://stormrecovery.ny.gov/LBWCAC ). There were nine CAC meetings between July 2015 to July 2018.

Stakeholder input led to many adjustments to the project, including the project location, breakwater height, and an initial land-based “water hub” concept evolved and eventually changed form altogether to become a floating hub. Moreover, stakeholder input also informed project priorities and helped ensure the retention of critical features of the project, including ecological elements, through the design process when budgetary concerns often lead to loss of non-protective features of NNBF projects. Additionally, the iterative process of reviewing and updating designs with public input garnered greater public support for the projects over time.

3.1.3 Funding and Implementation

The project was implemented using $60M of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding as well as $14M of funding from the State of New York. An environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed in 2018, and necessary state and federal permits were secured soon thereafter. The project construction began in August 2021 with a projected completion date of Fall 2024.

3.1.4 Ecosystem Services and Connectivity

Given that a fundamental goal of the project is ecological enhancement, several ecosystem service benefits are part of the design. Ecosystem service values for the project were estimated using a biome-based spatial approach, using the net change in habitat area with areal habitat dollar values obtained from published literature sources ( NYS-GOSR 2021 ). Biomes with positive net change in value included oyster habitat/reef sustainability, increased productivity of commercial finfish and crustaceans, shoreline stabilization, water quality improvements (nitrogen removal and SAV enhancement), and refugia. The only negative (gross) ecosystem services were related to loss of relatively lower-value sandy subtidal habitat under the footprint of the breakwater structures ( NYS-GOSR 2021 ). Also, there were hopefully limited negatives with regard to ecological connectivity, since the breakwaters could cause increased long-term sedimentation and reduced circulation behind them.

3.2 Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study—Gulf of Mexico

The Coastal Texas Study was undertaken to address habitat loss and the range of hazards faced by coastal areas in the state, including erosion, sea-level rise, and storm surge ( Figure 3 ). It seeks to determine the feasibility of Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) and Ecosystem Restoration (ER) measures to protect the state’s communities, critical economic functions, and environmental assets ( US Army Corps of Engineers and Texas General Land Office, 2020 ; https://coastalstudy.texas.gov ). The scope of the project covers the entire Texas coast, from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande River, including all coastal areas and interconnected ecosystems in the state’s 18 Gulf Coast counties.

www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 3 . (A) Overview of the Coastal Texas Study area. (B) The study proposes a multiple lines of defense approach for Galveston Bay that includes gulf defenses along the outer barrier island coast as well as bay defenses to provide residual risk reduction within the bay. The gulf defenses include (C) restored beach and dune systems along Bolivar Peninsula and (D) a gate system at Bolivar Roads, the primary connection between Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

3.2.1 Innovative Coastal Design

The project aims to minimize economic damage from coastal storm surge, inland and Gulf shoreline erosion, and restore threatened and endangered critical habitats hydrology to key lagoons. This is accomplished through a multiple-lines-of-defense strategy that combines structural, nature-based, and non-structural features to provide coastal resilience through implementation of robust and redundant protective features similar to the “double-insurance” framework of Andersson et al. (2017) . A tentatively selected plan was identified in May 2018, followed by draft reports integrating feasibility and environmental impacts for public, policy, and peer review, with the goal of advancing the project to Congress for authorization of construction funding in 2022. The comprehensive plan consists of 1) an ER component that covers 6,600 acres (∼27 km 2 ) of the coast to restore fish and wildlife habitat, improve hydrologic connectivity, and create and restore oyster reefs, marshes, dunes, and islands that provide protection for communities and infrastructure; 2) a CSRM component for 2.9 miles (∼4.7 km) of beach nourishment on South Padre Island along the lower Texas coast; and 3) a final CSRM component for the Houston-Galveston region spanning 63 miles (∼101 km) of the upper Texas coast to reduce storm surge entering Galveston Bay. This largest component, referred to as the Galveston Bay Storm Surge Barrier System, deploys a multiple-lines-of-defense approach intended to offer redundancy with the goal of mitigating storm surge impacts and improving the resilience for residents, industry, and ecosystems in the Houston-Galveston region. It includes a 2.8-mile (∼4.5-km) long gated surge barrier system across the Galveston Bay entrance, improvements to the existing Galveston Seawall, and 43 miles (∼69 km) of beach and dune systems on Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula, as well as strategies to mitigate residual risk from bay water surges, including additional gate closures and pumping stations at Clear Lake and Dickinson Bay on the mainland, a ring barrier for the backside of the City of Galveston, and additional nonstructural improvements on the mainland including floodproofing and raising of at-risk structures. The ER components target eight locations along the coast and include the construction of 114 miles (∼183.5 km) of breakwaters, 15.2 miles (∼24.5 km) of bird rookery islands, 2,052 acres (∼8.3 km 2 ) of marsh, 12.3 miles (∼19.8 km) of oyster reef, and 19.5 miles (∼31.4 km) of beach and dune restoration ( US Army Corps of Engineers and Texas General Land Office, 2020 ).

3.2.2 Stakeholder Engagement

The scoping process included federal, state, and local agencies and tribal nations, which met monthly to discuss study details and progress. Additional interagency and international workshops were held to discuss alternatives, performance metrics, and adaptive management approaches, among other aspects. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of face-to-face public hearings and outreach meetings were held to solicit public comments on the plan and to inform the public regarding project updates (recordings are available at https://coastalstudy.texas.gov/get-involved/public-meetings/index.html ). Community feedback led to changes to the plan, which originally included a floodwall over 17 ft (∼5.2 m) high to protect the barrier islands along Galveston Bay’s Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Local communities objected to this floodwall solution for a variety of reasons. After the USACE received more than 13,000 negative comments to this effect, they revised their plans and moved toward a more nature-based solution of beach and dune systems on the fronts of the barrier islands. It should be noted that this modification came with an increase of potential residual risks, but the tradeoffs offered an opportunity to better balance engineering performance, costs, benefits (i.e., returns on investment), and fewer environmental impacts resulting in a more socially acceptable solution. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study team could not host face-to-face public outreach activities, and as a fallback developed an interactive GIS-based driven StoryMap system to offer the public an opportunity to engage with the study team virtually and explore the recommended plan through an interactive experience medium ( https://coastal-texas-hub-usace-swg.hub.arcgis.com/ ).

3.2.3 Funding and Implementation

The US Congress appropriated $20.6 million to USACE over the course of the study in cooperation with the Texas General Land Office (TGLO), the non-federal cost-share sponsor, to complete the study effort. The estimated construction first-cost (in 2021 dollars) for the recommended plan is $28.9 billion, with 69% of the cost for Gulf Coast defense in Houston-Galveston and South Padre Island, 22% for bayshore defense in Houston-Galveston, and 9% for ecosystem restoration. The estimated average annual operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs are $131 million, which must be shouldered solely by the construction sponsor. Recent scholarly research demonstrated economic benefits of a coastal barrier for the communities along the upper Texas coast to outweigh its engineering costs ( Davlasheridze et al., 2019 ) and also looked at its significance in terms of buffering negative ripple effects on the economies of other states and the nation as a whole ( Davlasheridze et al., 2021 ). To proceed to construction, funding must be authorized and appropriated by Congress, and cost-share sponsors must be identified. The recent Senate Bill 1160, passed on 16 June 2021, authorized a creation of the “Gulf Coast Protection District,” a five-county taxing authority ( https://legiscan.com/TX/drafts/SB1160/2021 ) and corresponds to the latest developments towards realization of the coastal-defense system for upper Texas coast communities. The bill creates a formal mechanism for the district to partner with USACE and contribute towards funding, construction, and maintenance of a coastal barrier by taxing, issuing bonds, and other financial instruments. In addition, the Texas General Land Office will serve as an additional cost-share sponsor for the ER and South Padre Island components.

Design is expected to take 2–5 years to complete (per component), and construction is expected to take an additional 10–15 years after that. The project will be maintained for a minimum of 50 years by local sponsors. The average annual costs for operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement during this period are estimated at $131 million. This includes funding for periodic nourishment of restored beaches and dunes on Bolivar Peninsula and West Galveston Island every 6–7 years. As the project moves into the next phase, the project team will continue to engage with stakeholders and the public at large through the interactive StoryMap tool.

3.2.4 Ecosystem Services and Connectivity

A main goal of the Coastal Texas Study is to improve hydrologic connectivity while restoring or creating fish and wildlife habitat and natural features to provide coastal protection for communities and infrastructure. Specifically, this includes a designed system to reduce storm surge entering Galveston Bay. The full project incorporates several types of restoration actions including marsh restoration, island creation/restoration, dune and beach restoration, oyster reef creation/restoration, and hydrologic restoration. Each proposed ER action was evaluated by simulating the change in number of habitat units available for target species, compared to the no-project condition. Tools such as the Habitat Evaluation and Assessment Tool (HEAT), Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), and the Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) were used based on the ecosystem type and species. Average annual habitat units calculated across the project planning period were then used to develop the final suite of ER actions described in Section 3.2.1.

Together, the ER components of the project are designed to provide a range of ecosystem services for Texas coastal communities. They contribute to the primary risk-reduction goals of the project by preventing shoreline erosion and reducing inundation of populated areas. In addition, these projects can enhance local water quality and provide habitat for a variety of species of commercial and recreational value, including brown shrimp, brown pelican, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, oyster, and spotted seatrout.

3.3 South Bay Salt Ponds—San Francisco Bay, California

This panel had a wider focus than the others, since restoration in San Francisco Bay often occurs within a regional context. The panel included experts from the NOAA National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), San Francisco Estuary Partnership, California State Coastal Conservancy, and San Francisco Estuary Institute, providing perspectives from federal, state, local, and non-profit stakeholders. Many San Francisco Bay projects take regional strategies into consideration as part of their planning and implementation. These strategies include the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project ( Subtidal Goals 2010 ), Baylands Habitat Goals Update ( Goals Project 2015 ), Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the San Francisco Estuary (2016) , the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas ( Beagle et al., 2019 ), and the recent effort to establish a regional monitoring program through the Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program (WRMP; https://www.sfestuary.org/wrmp ). The WRMP Program Plan was released in April 2020, with the intention of full program implementation by 2022. The development of the WRMP included a process that engaged hundreds of experts around the Bay Area in designing the overall plan and the science framework. We focus on one specific project for the case study—South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (SBSP; https://www.southbayrestoration.org )—and provide insights from regional collaborations in the discussion of common themes below ( Figure 4 ). While the SBSP Restoration Project has been featured in other publications ( Chapple and Dronova 2017 ; Gies 2018 ; DeAngelis et al., 2020 ; also see https://www.southbayrestoration.org/news-items ), the project continues to evolve and has entered its second phase of construction.

www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 4 . Map of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project in San Francisco Bay.

3.3.1 Innovative Coastal Design

The SBSP Restoration Project is the largest tidal wetland restoration project on the US West Coast (15,100 acres, ∼60.7 km 2 ), seeking to restore multiple former salt-production ponds back to natural conditions like tidal marshes and other aquatic habitats ( Valoppi 2018 ). In addition to restoration, the project will provide regional flood risk reduction by absorbing tidal energy instead of reflecting it, reducing tidal amplitudes far beyond the project, to varying degrees across all of San Francisco Bay ( Holleman and Stacey 2014 ).

The project integrates three main goals: 1) habitat restoration that focuses on a range of special-status species, primarily tidal-marsh species but also species (mainly birds) that used ponded areas during the salt production era; 2) protection from tidal flows brought closer to developed areas as leveed salt ponds are opened up; and 3) addition of wildlife-compatible public access features to connect people with the Bay while providing wildlife access and habitat. The SBSP Restoration Project is implemented on lands within a state ecological reserve (Eden Landing Ecological Reserve) and a national wildlife refuge (Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge), and it is located in three counties, underscoring the importance of a regional approach to coastal management. Phase 1 occurred from 2007–2014, restored 3,000 (∼12.1 km 2 ) acres of tidal marsh, made improvements to >700 acres (∼2.8 km 2 ) of managed ponds to target pond-dependent wildlife, built islands and installed water management structures, and added 7 miles (∼11.3 km) of trails, mostly on levees, viewing platforms, a kayak launch, and historical exhibits. The project is in the earliest phases of Phase 2, which seeks to return tidal flows to additional areas, enhance pond habitat in other places, add trails, and integrate flood-protection projects with several external partner agencies. The SBSP Restoration Project includes an adaptive management program that uses a “restoration staircase” concept to address questions of adaptation and resilience, inserting intentional pauses to evaluate how habitats are evolving and how wildlife are responding. For example, before moving to Phase 2, the program worked with scientists to evaluate past performance and suggest possible adaptation measures to adjust project designs and refine the science program for Phase 2. These measures include anticipated effects of climate change and emerging technologies, as well as potential funding and communication mechanisms. Insights from this process and other regional planning efforts such as the Adaptation Atlas (developed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute; Beagle et al., 2019 ) help to identify types of adaptation strategies for consideration at specific sites.

Both the regional WRMP and the SBSP Restoration Project face potential challenges to success. For the WRMP, the biggest challenge is serving such a broad community of interest while remaining technically rigorous. There is a constant driving need to produce great science, but the process can overpower a Program like this one if all interested parties are at the table. For example, balancing trade-offs of serving such a broad community of stakeholders and of inclusion and focus when it comes to program development can be difficult. For the SBSP Restoration Project, challenges include climate change and other environmental changes that affect flooding and sediment supply to sustain the establishing tidal marshes. Project actions have the potential to increase bioavailable mercury and negatively impact the food web, as well as invasive species expansion. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Adaptive Management Plan, (2007) is specifically designed to address these, and many other, uncertainties as the project continues, directly informing design and implementation of each phase of the project.

The marsh restoration areas are meant to have an indefinite/permanent useful life, as they are primarily habitat features in an obviously dynamic and ever-changing environment. They are not necessarily intended to provide any specific degree of coastal resilience or flood protection on their own. The public access features such as levee-top trails, boardwalks, viewing platforms, etc. have useful lives of 30–50 years, with the 30 being the official “intended” useful life of those features. The water control structures and pond levees/berms used in the managed pond enhancements usually need constant maintenance and/or repair/replacement on the order of a decade or so.

3.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement

The Wetland Regional Monitoring Plan (WRMP) uses a collaborative, consensus-based approach for regulators, land managers, and scientists making decisions together, starting with management questions that drive monitoring down to the level of metrics, protocols, and indicators, then bringing in new questions to update metrics and protocols. It is a prime example of combining the technical foundation for the work with public engagement, listening to the underserved communities that are adjacent to restoration projects and any other interested community members. Indeed, extensive community engagement is becoming a basic foundational practice for designing restoration projects and is one of the core best management practices.

For the SBSP Restoration Project, outreach and stakeholder engagement efforts are led by the California State Coastal Conservancy and the Consensus and Collaboration Program at California State University Sacramento. Outreach is a critical part of the entire project, since it is one of the largest restoration projects in the US and takes place in one of the most densely populated regions of California with many different user groups, interests, neighboring landowners, and stakeholders. The major venue for the public to provide advice and recommendations to the Project Management Team is through the Stakeholder Forum, a group of 25 individuals representing local businesses, advocacy groups, elected officials, recreational groups, and others. Input from extensive interviews with a wide range of stakeholders prior to implementation resulted in the current stakeholder process that provides opportunities for input at each phase of planning ( California State University Sacramento, 2003 ). This feedback, and recognition of the additional challenges of climate change on this system, led to recent recommendations to increase regional coordination and engagement to enhance adaptive management moving forward. This is recognized as an important theme for all regional planning. Indeed, the Baylands Goals Science Update for the San Francisco Bay area ( Goals Project 2015 ; https://www.sfei.org/projects/baylandsgoals ) made several recommendations for climate planning in the region that included centralizing data for better coordination and facilitating dialogue to promote information diffusion among stakeholder groups.

3.3.3 Funding and Implementation

In 2003, 15,100 acres (∼61.1 km 2 ) of commercial salt ponds were acquired from Cargill, Inc. for $100 million, funded by federal and state resource agencies and several private foundations. Funds for implementation of the South Bay restoration, flood management, and public access plan to date have come from a mix of sources, including local, state, and federal funds, as well as private funds from foundations or other non-governmental organizations. The largest sources of ongoing funding for restoration planning, design, permitting, and construction are competitive federal, state, and regional grant programs, matched by in-kind contributions from the project partner agencies.

The South Bay project is being implemented in multiple phases over 50 years, using a robust adaptive management plan (AMP) to determine how far the system can move toward full tidal action and associated tidal habitats, while still meeting the other Project Objectives ( Trulio et al., 2007 ). The AMP identifies restoration targets as well as triggers that may necessitate management actions. The organizational strategy includes an Executive Project Manager and Executive Leadership Group and a Project Management Team that regularly interacts with the Science Team, Regulatory and Trustee Agency Group, and Stakeholder Forum to ensure oversight and coordinate planning and implementation throughout the project ( https://www.southbayrestoration.org/page/who-we-are-collaborative-team ).

3.3.4 Ecosystem Services and Connectivity

The SBSP Restoration Project highlights the need to make sure habitats are not created for a single species but rather consider competing species’ needs. Indeed, one of the main goals of the SBSP Restoration Project is habitat restoration for a range of special-status species. While the focus is mostly on tidal marsh species, there is also a need to protect the many types of wildlife (mainly birds) that used the ponded areas during salt production. So, the project design needed to restore tidal marsh species while also providing for pond-dependent wildlife species and while connecting habitat via wildlife corridors. Another goal is to add wildlife-compatible public access features like trails and viewing areas to connect people with SF Bay and help them understand why restoration is needed. These goals and associated ecosystem services are not always compatible, making some trade-offs potentially necessary. For example, opening up the salt ponds and restoring tidal flows brought water closer to developed areas, resulting in a need to maintain or improve current levels of flood protection for those areas. This has entailed working with local flood protection agencies to incorporate their projects into the landscape with the restored sites.

Beyond the challenge of managing the competing goals for the project and the challenges of predicted effects of sea-level rise, the project provides an array of ecosystem services and greatly improved connectivity along the shoreline. The restoration supports baseline services and functions such as photosynthesis, nutrient cycling and provides habitat and nursery areas, increases biodiversity, and the transition zones designed into the project provide high tide refugia. Much of the habitat along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay has been reduced in size and suffered from fragmentation due to urban development. Increasing the area of tidal marshes is an important part of the design and will help to create larger, more connected patches of marsh habitat in the South Bay to allow movement of not only wildlife species, but of water, sediment and nutrients between the Bay and ponds that were previously restricted by berms and levees. Social and economic services are services that are especially important to people for cultural and social development and the Bay area will benefit from increased access to trails for hiking and biking, and birdwatching. This is a key issue for the region, and so it follows that evaluating how wetland restoration provides benefits to humans is one of the five guiding questions of the regional WRMP. This task will work to ensure that diverse voices are at the table in the WRMP process, and their interests are reflected in the suite of indicators monitored by the WRMP. Enhancing community engagement and ecosystem services evaluation will improve the ability of the WRMP to advance environmental justice and improve environmental conditions for communities disproportionately impacted by climate change and the loss of wetlands.

4 Discussion of Emerging Themes

Several common themes emerged from the three case studies that highlight factors contributing to and/or hindering success of innovative coastline management projects, depending on the context. We have organized the themes into two sections—areas of progress and remaining challenges. It is important to note that there have been advancements and challenges in every theme; the groupings are intended to guide readers rather than represent a hard boundary. Our goal is to glean lessons learned within each theme to inform future NNBF coastal resilience projects.

4.1 Areas of Progress

4.1.1 moving beyond single-benefit projects.

Historical approaches to coastal protection have focused on reducing potential damages from hazards such as flooding and erosion via gray infrastructure (e.g., levees, seawalls, and bulkheads) ( Griggs 2005 ; Spalding et al., 2014 ). Despite the immediate and often substantial risk-reduction benefits provided by these structures, they offer minimal co-benefits and can even cause loss of coastal habitat and associated ecosystem services ( Sutton-Grier et al., 2015 ). NNBF and hybrid approaches to coastal protection represent a promising alternative to gray infrastructure because of the many co-benefits that can be achieved, including wildlife habitat, recreation, water quality, and carbon/nutrient sequestration ( Bridges et al., 2015 ). Additionally, the USACE has determined that NNBF projects that involve very collaborative, multi-disciplinary partnerships including landscape architects, engineers, and applied scientists, not only result in improved NNBF projects, but also improved communication and support for these types of projects ( King et al., 2022 ). Hence, projects with multiple goals and multiple collaborators have many benefits.

Each case study started with an innovative framing, enabled through the funding sources themselves. The Rebuild by Design competition that resulted in the Living Breakwaters project encouraged innovation and broad interdisciplinary teams, with the goal of “promoting innovation by developing regionally scalable but locally contextual solutions that increase resilience in the region” ( https://stageipk.es.its.nyu.edu/initiatives/rebuild-by-design/ ). The competition awarded projects that included strong engagement of local communities and government stakeholders, driving projects to target a wider range of benefits than simple flood-damage reduction. In the case of the Coastal Texas Study, the authorization for the study was explicitly for “flood damage reduction” and “ecosystem restoration,” in contrast to other more typical feasibility studies (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, 2015 ; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2019 ) that were only authorized for damage reduction. The SBSP Restoration Project initiative sought co-benefits from the initial stages of planning for restoration, flood reduction and wildlife-friendly public access.

By leveraging nature-based and hybrid infrastructure, all three case studies move beyond a sole focus on safety and flood reduction to include multiple functions and benefits ( Van Veelen et al., 2015 ; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2020 ). Complete elimination of risk is not the goal, nor is it realistic given anticipated increases in the rate of sea-level rise and storm intensity; instead, each project provides meaningful risk mitigation while also enhancing ecological and/or social resilience. For example, in addition to providing wave attenuation and erosion reduction, the Living Breakwaters project also aims to increase biodiversity, enhance shoreline recreational opportunities, and raise awareness of coastal resiliency and ecological health. The Coastal Texas Study includes numerous components aimed at creating or restoring natural features that provide habitat in addition to acting as barriers to storm surge or waves. The SBSP Restoration Project and other regional projects in San Francisco Bay are focused on ecological restoration rather than an explicit risk reduction component, although projects do include measures to ensure that flood risk for adjacent communities and infrastructure does not increase as a result of restoration actions. Also, enhancing recreation opportunities can be an important aspect for community buy-in and obtaining funding from multiple sources. For example, the SBSP Restoration Project has public access as one of its main goals and includes trails and viewpoints in almost all of the project sites.

Multi-functional projects such as these can address the needs of a variety of stakeholders and enable multiple pathways for a project to be successful, even if some aspects of the project do not end up working as well as others. For example, there has been increasing awareness by the public that the restoration of ponds at the edge of SF Bay may provide some protection against sea level rise for critical infrastructure, global technology companies, and other Silicon Valley businesses. As these case studies demonstrate, communities and stakeholders value natural habitats and the services they provide and may be more willing to support coastal resilience projects that include co-benefits such as maintaining ecosystem integrity and recreational access. An example of increased public awareness and support of wetland restoration includes the passage of Measure AA (San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure)—the nine counties of San Francisco Bay voted for a 20-year, $12/year parcel tax that will raise $500 million for restoration projects in the Bay. The personal connection to the Bay by voters was one of the major factors for its success ( https://www.sfbayrestore.org/overview ). Given the multifaceted and interdisciplinary nature of NNBF projects, successful design and implementation requires expertise and cooperation across a variety of fields and sectors. Local system knowledge is critical to apply successful strategies from other projects, adapting them to address site-specific conditions. The projects described here include teams spanning a broad range of participants from architecture, engineering, ecology, economics, and/or social science representing state/federal agencies, consulting firms, and academia. These multidisciplinary teams reflect the importance of integrated thinking that considers the physical hazards alongside ecological and social responses.

4.1.2 Creating Opportunities for Natural and Nature-Based Features Through Co-Production of Project Designs

Input from the public is critically important since coastal resilience projects not only affect local communities and the environment but also people’s lives. As a result of the potential negative side effects of protecting coasts with gray infrastructure, including degraded habitat, loss of shoreline access, and impacts on neighboring properties, gray projects have faced opposition from stakeholders and the public in the past ( Griggs 2005 ). For example, a project in Ventura, California to prevent shoreline erosion by constructing a seawall was opposed by local stakeholders, including the Surfrider Foundation and the California State Coastal Conservancy, in the 1990s. Instead, the interested parties agreed upon a managed retreat approach (Surfer’s Point Managed Shoreline Retreat; https://ventura.surfrider.org/surfers-point/ ) that allowed for habitat restoration and did not interfere with local hydrodynamics ( Judge et al., 2017 ).

In contrast, coastal resilience projects that have stakeholder engagement as one of their explicit goals can incorporate feedback early and often as the project progresses. The Coastal Texas Study is an excellent example of feedback shifting the project design from a more traditional, gray approach to a more natural/hybrid solution. That project initially proposed a floodwall that was opposed by local residents, who sent thousands of negative comments to USACE. As a result, the project was redesigned to use a beach and dune system to reduce flooding from the Gulf instead. This solution provides fewer risk-reduction benefits but is more acceptable to the local community and provides more NNBF co-benefits.

Frequent and effective communication between the project team, stakeholders, and the public can contribute to a more transparent process that includes opportunities for input and adjustments, helping to build trust and buy-in ( Paul et al., 2018 ). The case studies here, especially Living Breakwaters and the Coastal Texas Study, highlight the importance of clear communication. For example, in the Living Breakwaters project, being transparent in the process about what the project could and could not do was critical for developing trust with everyone involved. This project made it clear from the beginning that the goal was not to keep flood waters out of the area but rather to restore ecological systems, reduce the risk of erosion and wave damage, and enhance social outreach and education. The project team specifically engaged with stakeholders before truly beginning the design to establish project goals and trade-offs, ultimately producing hundreds of pages of information for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For the Coastal Texas Study, following the release of the first Draft EIS, there was widespread misunderstanding among locals about the proposed plan, and misinformation was spread on social media. The project team learned from this experience and conducted a much more extensive outreach and public education campaign prior to the release of the revised Draft EIS, which resulted in more productive exchanges between the project team and the public.

4.1.3 Managing Uncertainty in Project Performance

Unlike engineered structures that have a set of well-defined design criteria, there are uncertainties in quantifying the capacity of nature-based systems to withstand extreme events and determining the breakpoints at which such a system is expected to either fail to provide its required engineering service or itself be destroyed due to the environmental conditions. This requires a flexible design approach that can not only satisfy short-term needs but also allow for future adjustments to meet long-term goals. It also requires a post-construction monitoring program to document the performance of these systems and may require a greater commitment to ongoing maintenance to achieve a desired level of protection than traditional approaches. Since these systems are innovative, guidance on expected outcomes (e.g., amount of sediment accretion that will occur over time) is lacking, especially compared to decades of experience with gray infrastructure, and engineers may have more comfort with materials that have documented factors of safety. It can also be a challenge to predict the long-term evolution of NNBF and to scale up from small-scale to larger-scale applications. For example, in the Sand Motor project in Netherlands, the uncertainty in the predicted evolution is a mixture of both uncertainty in model formulations in current state of the art models and the uncertainty in future (wave) forcing ( Kroon et al., 2020 ). This is especially important since there is a large natural variability in ecology and still many unknowns on how habitat attributes result in changes in biodiversity and species richness.

Thus, it is critical that learning from NNBF projects also be one of the multi-functional goals, so that we can learn as much as possible from every project. For example, because there is no “one-size-fits-all” natural infrastructure design for all contexts ( Sutton-Grier et al., 2015 ) and the coastal resilience ecosystem services provided by natural infrastructure vary by geomorphic setting and event conditions ( Saleh and Weinstein 2016 ), one main research focus that is still greatly needed is better understanding of what approaches and strategies work well in which conditions ( Smith et al., 2020 ). Additionally, we need to know how to effectively implement NNBF projects for coastal resilience, and how projects can address uncertainties and evaluate or weigh different components (e.g., using Ecosystem Services framework). Projects should define goals for long-term adaptability in the planning of the project and establish specific performance metrics and clearly defined goals ( Arkema et al., 2017 ; Bayulken et al., 2021 ). In the Living Breakwaters project, modeling of waves, storm surge, and sediment movement in water and then onshore was a critical component to developing the design, and monitoring the project will be key to understanding how well the project is functioning for both ecological and risk reduction goals. In the SBSP Restoration Project, understanding how salt pond restoration would impact flooding and flood risk to human development has been key to planning to maintain or improve flood protection for those communities as part of the restoration design.

There is a general focus on “no-regrets” strategies by assessing adaptability to climate change via stress tests under higher sea levels. The Coastal Texas Study evaluated project alternatives under low, intermediate, and high SLR scenarios through 2,135 and includes a plan for monitoring and adaptively managing the ecosystem restoration components of the project to ensure that project objectives are met across the lifetime of the project. It also utilizes a multiple-lines-of-defense approach to provide redundancy in coastal protection and address possible failure modes. For example, possible breaching of the dune barrier system during large storms is addressed by including bay-side defenses and by elevating structures. The SBSP Restoration Project explicitly includes adaptive management, so that lessons learned from Phase 1 can be incorporated into Phase 2 plans and future phases along with new insights from emerging science and technology. Adaptive management via engaging scientists and stakeholders is a key part of the WRMP in San Francisco Bay, in which lessons learned from designing, implementing, and monitoring for one project will inform other projects at local and regional scales.

4.1.4 Expanding Beyond the Project Scale to a Regional Perspective

Possibly because of the stakeholder engagement and the focus on multiple benefits of each project, as well as the need to design multiple features to achieve many aspects of resilience, NNBF projects are often part of a suite of projects to build resilience across a broad region. This is a strength of the NNBF approach, because there can be a larger focus on how individual projects fit together into a coastal system designed for resilience. Connectivity of multiple projects along a coastline can be part of the design of NNBF projects particularly in urban settings in order to counter past loss of coastal ecosystems and biodiversity ( Aguilera et al., 2020 ). For example, in the Coastal Texas Study, there are many different resilience approaches across an entire region that are combined into one larger project with multiple goals—restoring fish and wildlife habitat; improving hydrologic connectivity; creating and restoring oyster reefs, marshes, dunes, and islands that provide protection for communities and infrastructure; renourishing beaches; installing a new tidal gate; and improving a seawall. In the SF Bay, once developed, the WRMP would integrate monitoring, reporting, and data-sharing across a wide range of projects to improve uniformity, consistency, currency, and other aspects of data. The project itself is also taking into account that as a result of the restoration of tidal flows, flood risk on different parts of the landscape is changing, and so maintaining and improving flood protection is part of the design of the project to help address the changes taking place across the landscape as restoration reconnects parts of the landscape that were previously separated by the salt ponds. Taking a regional approach to resilience and incorporating NNBF projects is a critical, forward-looking step in improving coastal resilience.

4.2 Remaining Challenges

4.2.1 navigating permitting and policy barriers.

A significant barrier to the widespread implementation of innovative NNBF projects is the permitting process for new designs, which is often complex and may need quite a lot of lead time. Permits may be required at the local, state, and/or federal level. There may be many steps, and regulators may be seeing this type of innovative project for the first time. Again, the importance of being transparent and doing outreach and education as part of these projects applies to getting regulatory and community buy-in. For example, a key to facilitating the permitting process for the Living Breakwaters project was to have a clear purpose and need statement that included all of the project benefits (risk reduction, ecological enhancement, and social resilience) and to have a robust and transparent dialog with the regulatory community early and often to help craft a permitting path that was appropriate for the project’s innovative approaches.

Many panelists described the frustrations and challenges with regulatory barriers that made projects more difficult. Oftentimes the policies are well-meaning environmental regulations that aim to protect people and ecosystems, and yet make it challenging to be innovative in the coastal resilience setting. For example, regulations around the use of “fill” (e.g., sand or silt dredged from a location often for maintenance needs such as navigable shipping channels) in wetlands were initially designed to protect wetlands and generally did not include anticipated effects of climate change or potential opportunities to use fill to enhance or restore coastal environments when they were implemented. Because they are legal requirements, regulatory agencies may have to undergo a lengthy legal process to grant permits to allow use of fill in wetlands. Even given the challenges of addressing this barrier, it is important to change the conversation on fill from seeing it only as a pollutant to considering it as a possible asset to NNBF projects. Restrictions on fill use was a challenge to the Living Breakwaters project design. In San Francisco Bay, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the regional body charged with managing the Bay coastline, is doing just that and changing its policy to allow the use of fill for restoration and environmental enhancement projects while still maintaining restrictions on the use of fill for development projects. At the federal level, USACE is increasingly exploring opportunities to incorporate NNBF into coastal risk-reduction projects, as evidenced by the Coastal Texas Study and EWN efforts, including the use of fill for beneficial reuse. However, there are still limitations in the use of dredged material across multiple projects that will require innovations in policy and blending of funds. Thus, more research on the appropriate use of fill is needed to inform potential changes in regulations that could facilitate more NNBF projects. This type of innovation in the policy space is going to continue to be needed to support more NNBF projects.

Successful permitting and implementation of multi-objective projects may also require a rethinking of how project planning is conducted within and between mission-focused agencies, as projects that move outside of the stated mission may be difficult to justify and fund. This siloing of projects within existing agency boundaries to avoid “mission creep” may miss out on opportunities to achieve multiple benefits across a range of objectives. Thus, while there has already been some progress to address these barriers, they will likely continue to be a challenge for innovative coastal resilience projects until these innovations become more of the “norm.”

4.2.2 Funding

Several panelists identified funding as a critical need for both project development and long-term monitoring after implementation. This is a continuing challenge, especially in the US, where funding for resilience projects is primarily often tied to the disaster-response cycle ( NRC, 2014 ). The Living Breakwaters project is an excellent example of a project that arose after a major disaster; if it had been implemented before Hurricane Sandy, it may have protected the coastline from some damages. It is important as a society that we start making investments in resilience projects that are not tied to the disaster-response cycle. We need to be anticipatory and fund the development and implementation of these projects during “blue-sky” periods before the next big storm (e.g., Reguero et al., 2020 ). This would allow projects to not be rushed and to have more certainty about funding opportunities.

When NNBF projects are funded in a post-disaster context, there is often a firm and short timeline on funds, prohibiting post-installation monitoring. Yet such monitoring can help define “success” of a project and inform other projects or other phases of the existing projects. In response to a vacuum of long-term monitoring of NNBF projects after Hurricane Sandy, a New York State-funded team and stakeholders recently co-created a state-level monitoring program ( Wijsman et al., 2021 ).

An ongoing monitoring program can be planned during project design that is rigorous but not so much that it becomes onerous or burdensome to fund and/or conduct over the years. For example, the Living Breakwaters project was designed to enable long-term monitoring to learn more about which specific breakwater designs and parameters are more likely to be effective to help inform adaptive management efforts and future projects. However, future funding will still be required for the actual research and measurements in this project. The SBSP Restoration Project offers a success story in which the investment of funding for long-term monitoring in the first phase of the project has informed the planning for the next phase, as well as providing valuable insights for other projects in the region.

Cost-sharing requirements can also place a limitation on the long-term maintenance and monitoring of NNBF projects. For example, in the Coastal TX Study, the ecosystem restoration alternatives were initially meant to include funding for nourishment if needed in response to changing conditions and sea-level rise. However, the cost of maintaining ecosystem restoration measures, which are required to be self-sustaining, could not be cost-shared, so this was later removed from the recommended plan. If nourishment is deemed necessary during the post-project monitoring period, the required work will have to be authorized separately at that time. Without proper funding to maintain ecosystem restoration components, the long-term survival and performance of these systems may be constrained. In contrast, features that also included a risk-reduction component, such as the beach and dune restoration, do include funding for periodic nourishment to maintain protective benefits.

4.2.3 Defining and Assessing Project Costs and Benefits

There is also a need to broaden the thinking on cost-benefit analyses. These studies are commonly used to assess options and trade-offs for project alternatives, and yet have traditionally only included the costs of construction and the benefits of reducing flood risks provided by projects (e.g., Aerts 2018 ; Reguero et al., 2018 ; Waryszak et al., 2021 ). With the burgeoning of innovative NNBF projects with multi-functional goals, it is key that cost-benefit analyses include all the benefits these projects provide, including ecological, recreational, and other benefits, although these co-benefits can be hard to quantify in monetary terms ( Sutton-Grier et al., 2015 ; Seddon et al., 2020 ). Each of our case studies addressed more than benefit-cost ratios for risk reduction, often in response to community input. In the Coastal Texas Study for example, the cost-benefit analysis included benefits to wildlife in addition to risk reduction benefits. For Living Breakwaters, the project team is specifically planning to monitor fish productivity on the underwater portions of the breakwaters to quantify the ecological benefits. In some cases, data may be lacking or very limited to inform cost-benefit analyses of these multiple benefits; however, this is one of the reasons why monitoring many aspects of these NNBF projects is key. We will learn from these projects and that new understanding of co-benefits can help inform cost-benefit analyses of future projects and address some of the hesitancy to give permits.

One of the unique elements of the Coastal Texas Study and Living Breakwaters project is a focus on co-benefits in the provision of dune habitat and oyster reefs, respectively. Without the context of serving as engineering structures, these elements alone might be considered ecosystem restoration. Here, the NNBF context reimagines a practical approach to incorporating these elements into levees and breakwaters and asks us to consider the phenomenological roots of “restoration” (see Hilderbrand et al., 2005 ; Hobbs et al., 2009 ; Hertog and Turnhout 2018 ). Certainly, these efforts are not restoring the system back to some historical state, but they replace lost restoration functions, and in this way, they lie in a grey area of restoration (e.g., “novel ecosystems”; Hobbs et al., 2013 ).

One recommendation for future projects and efforts in coastal resilience is to think specifically about what we can learn from each of these innovative projects because additional data on the performance, community outreach/stakeholder engagement, and socioeconomic components of NNBF projects is key to improving future projects ( Smith et al., 2020 ; Bayulken et al., 2021 ). Collecting similar types of data from these and future projects would enable us to learn as much as possible from each project. We have included recommendations for the types of benefits or ecosystem services that NNBF projects should consider including in their monitoring plans ( Table 2 ).

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 2 . Potential services provided by NNBF ( Bridges et al., 2015 ).

This is not a comprehensive list by any means, but is a good starting point for thinking about the types of data we should collect across projects to help with project comparisons and to inform future planning and analyses. Considering a consistent and more complete set of services across NNBF projects could facilitate the evaluation, selection, and permitting of similar future projects. The goal of this case-study analysis, as well as the suggestions for data collection for future projects, is to facilitate additional innovative coastal resilience projects across the US and around the world.

Author Contributions

This paper was co-developed by the Steering Committee members and Panelists listed in Table 1 . The Steering Committee wrote the first draft of the paper, led by CP, after which it was reviewed for feedback and input by the Panelists. All authors participated in subsequent rounds of revisions and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

We acknowledge funding support from National Science Foundation through the CoPe (Coastlines and People) RCN (Research Coordination Network): Advancing Interdisciplinary Research to Build Resilient Communities and Infrastructure in the Nation’s Estuaries and Bays CoPe RCN grant: ICER 1940273. CP was partially supported by the Grayce B. Kerr Fund. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Conflict of Interest

JM is employed by Arcadis.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank many colleagues, students, and staff for fruitful discussions on this topic. We especially thank the attendees of the web panel series, particularly those who actively participated via questions and comments in the chat and brought out additional facets of the projects beyond our initial panel planning. Constructive comments from 2 reviewers helped improve the original manuscript. This is contribution #6113 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Aerts, J. (2018). A Review of Cost Estimates for Flood Adaptation. Water 10, 1646. doi:10.3390/w10111646

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguilera, M. A., Tapia, J., Gallardo, C., Núñez, P., and Varas-Belemmi, K. (2020). Loss of Coastal Ecosystem Spatial Connectivity and Services by Urbanization: Natural-to-Urban Integration for bay Management. J. Environ. Manage. 276, 111297. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111297

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andersson, E., Borgström, S., and McPhearson, T. (2017). “Double Insurance in Dealing with Extremes: Ecological and Social Factors for Making Nature-Based Solutions Last,” in Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas . Editors N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, and A. Bonn (Cham: Springer International Publishing ), 51–64. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_4

Anguelovski, I., and Connolly, J. J. T. (2021). “Addressing green and Climate Gentrification in East Boston,” in The Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and Europe . 1st ed. (London: Routledge ), 14.

Google Scholar

Arkema, K. K., Griffin, R., Maldonado, S., Silver, J., Suckale, J., and Guerry, A. D. (2017). Linking Social, Ecological, and Physical Science to advance Natural and Nature-Based protection for Coastal Communities. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1399, 5–26. doi:10.1111/nyas.13322

Bayulken, B., Huisingh, D., and Fisher, P. M. J. (2021). How Are Nature Based Solutions Helping in the Greening of Cities in the Context of Crises Such as Climate Change and Pandemics? A Comprehensive Review. J. Clean. Prod. 288, 125569. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125569

Beagle, J., Lowe, J., McKnight, K., Safran, S. M., Tam, L., and Jo Szambelan, S. (2019). San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas: Working with Nature to Plan for Sea Level Rise Using Operational Landscape UnitsSFEI Contribution No. 915 . Richmond, CA: SFEI & SPUR , 255. Available at: https://www.sfei.org/documents/adaptationatlas .

Bilkovic, D. M., and Mitchell, M. M. (2013). Ecological Tradeoffs of Stabilized Salt Marshes as a Shoreline protection Strategy: Effects of Artificial Structures on Macrobenthic Assemblages. Ecol. Eng. 61, 469–481. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.011

Bridges, T., Bourne, E. M., King, J., Kuzmitski, H., Moynihan, E., and Suedel, B. (2018). Engineering with Nature : An Atlas . Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers . Engineer Research and Development Center Special Report ERDC/EL SR-18-8. doi:10.21079/11681/27929

Bridges, T., Bourne, E., Suedel, B., Moynihan, E., and King, J. (2021). Engineering with Nature: An Atlas , 2. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers . Engineer Research and Development Center Special Report ERDC/EL SR-21-2. doi:10.21079/11681/40124

Bridges, T. S., Burks-Copes, K. A., Bates, M. E., Collier, Z., Fischenich, C. J., Piercy, C. D., et al. (2015). Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF) for Coastal Resilience . Washington, D.C.: US Army Corps of Engineers .

Brière, C., Janssen, S. K. H., Oost, A. P., Taal, M., and Tonnon, P. K. (2018). Usability of the Climate-Resilient Nature-Based Sand Motor Pilot, The Netherlands. J. Coast Conserv 22, 491–502. doi:10.1007/s11852-017-0527-3

California State University (CSU) Sacramento. 2003. Stakeholder and Organizational Assessment Findings and Recommendations by Center for Collaborative Policy. Available at: https://www.southbayrestoration.org/pdf_files/stakeholder_assess/Final_Assessment_Report.pdf. . (Accessed April 4, 2022).

Chapple, D., and Dronova, I. (2017). Vegetation Development in a Tidal Marsh Restoration Project during a Historic Drought: a Remote Sensing Approach. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 243. doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00243

Chasten, M. A., Rosati, J. D., McCormick, J. W., and Randall, R. E. (1993). "Engineering Design Guidance for Detached Breakwaters as Shoreline Stabilization Structure," in DTIC Document . Available at: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA275241 .

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Place for the San Francisco Estuary (2016). Available at: https://www.sfestuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CCMPFinalOct2016.pdf . (Accessed April 4, 2022).

Davlasheridze, M., Atoba, K. O., Brody, S., Highfield, W., Merrell, W., Ebersole, B., et al. (2019). Economic Impacts of Storm Surge and the Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Coastal Spine as the Surge Mitigation Strategy in Houston-Galveston Area in the USA. Mitig Adapt Strateg. Glob. Change 24, 329–354. doi:10.1007/s11027-018-9814-z

Davlasheridze, M., Fan, Q., Highfield, W., and Liang, J. (2021). Economic Impacts of Storm Surge Events: Examining State and National Ripple Effects. Climatic Change 166, 1–20. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03106-z

de Schipper, M. A., Ludka, B. C., Raubenheimer, B., Luijendijk, A. P., and Schlacher, T. A. (2020). Beach Nourishment Has Complex Implications for the Future of sandy Shores. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 70–84. doi:10.1038/s43017-020-00109-9

DeAngelis, B., Sutton-Grier, A., Colden, A., Arkema, K., Baillie, C., Bennett, R., et al. (2020). Social Factors Key to Landscape-Scale Coastal Restoration: Lessons Learned from Three U.S. Case Studies. Sustainability 12, 869. doi:10.3390/su12030869

Dunning, K. H. (2020). Building Resilience to Natural Hazards through Coastal Governance: a Case Study of Hurricane Harvey Recovery in Gulf of Mexico Communities. Ecol. Econ. 176, 106759. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106759

Gies, E. (2018). Fortresses of Mud: How to Protect the San Francisco Bay Area from Rising Seas. Nature 562, 178–180. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06955-4

Gittman, R. K., Popowich, A. M., Bruno, J. F., and Peterson, C. H. (2014). Marshes with and without Sills Protect Estuarine Shorelines from Erosion Better Than Bulkheads during a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean Coastal Manag. 102, 94–102. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.016

Goals Project (2015). The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Science Update 2015 Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project . Oakland, CA: California State Coastal Conservancy . Available at: https://www.sfei.org/documents/baylandsgoalsreport .

Grannis, J., Arroyo, V., Hoverter, S., Goetz, M., Bennett, A., DeWeese, J., et al. (2016). Rebuilding with Resilience: Lessons from the Rebuild by Design Competition after Hurricane Sandy . Washington, DC. USA: Georgetown Climate Center .

Griggs, G. (2005). “California’s Retreating Coastline: where Do We Go from Here,” in California and the World Ocean. ’97 Conference Proceedings Editors Magoon, O. T., Converse, H., Baird, B., and Miller-Henson, M.. American Society of Civil Engineering , 2 121–125.

Heckert, M., and Rosan, C. D. (2016). Developing a Green Infrastructure Equity Index to Promote Equity Planning.. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 19, 263–270.

Hemmerling, S. A., Barra, M., Bienn, H. C., Baustian, M. M., Jung, H., Meselhe, E., et al. (2020). Elevating Local Knowledge through Participatory Modeling: Active Community Engagement in Restoration Planning in Coastal Louisiana. J. Geogr. Syst. 22, 241–266. doi:10.1007/s10109-019-00313-2

Hertog, I. M., and Turnhout, E. (2018). Ideals and Pragmatism in the Justification of Ecological Restoration. Restor Ecol. 26, 1221–1229. doi:10.1111/rec.12680

Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., and Randle, A. M. (2005). The Myths of Restoration Ecology. Ecol. Soc. 10, 19. doi:10.5751/es-01277-100119

Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., and Harris, J. A. (2009). Novel Ecosystems: Implications for Conservation and Restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 599–605. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012

Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S., and Hall, C. M. (2013). “Defining Novel Ecosystems,” in Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order . Editors R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and C. M. Hall (Chichester, West Sussex, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons ), 58–60. doi:10.1002/9781118354186.ch6

Holleman, R. C., and Stacey, M. T. (2014). Coupling of Sea Level Rise, Tidal Amplification, and Inundation. J. Phys. Oceanography 44, 1439–1455. doi:10.1175/jpo-d-13-0214.1

Judge, J., Newkirk, S., Leo, K., Heady, W., Hayden, M., Veloz, S., et al. (2017). Case Studies of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure in Coastal California: A Component of Identification of Natural Infrastructure Options for Adapting to Sea Level Rise (California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment) . Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy , 38.

King, J., Holmes, R., Burkholder, S., Holzman, J., and Suedel, B. (2022). Advancing Nature‐based Solutions by Leveraging Engineering with Nature Strategies and Landscape Architectural Practices in Highly Collaborative Settings. Integr. Envir Assess. Manag. 18, 108–114. doi:10.1002/ieam.4473

Kroon, A., de Schipper, M. A., van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., and Aarninkhof, S. G. J. (2020). Ranking Uncertainty: Wave Climate Variability versus Model Uncertainty in Probabilistic Assessment of Coastline Change. Coastal Eng. 158, 103673. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103673

Luijendijk, A., and van Oudenhoven, A. (2019). The Sand Motor: A Nature-Based Response to Climate Change: Findings and Reflections of the Interdisciplinary Research Program NatureCoast . Delft: Delft University Publishers - TU Delft Library .

Marrone, J., Zhou, S., Brashear, P., Howe, B., and Baker, S. (2019). “Numerical and Physical Modeling to Inform Design of the Living Breakwaters Project, Staten Island, New York,” in Coastal Structures 2019 . Editors N. Goseberg, and T. Schlurmann (Karlsruhe: Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau ), 1044–1054. doi:10.18451/978-3-939230-64-9_105

Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States . Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press . doi:10.17226/5782

Morris, R. L., Konlechner, T. M., Ghisalberti, M., and Swearer, S. E. (2018). From Grey to green: Efficacy of Eco-Engineering Solutions for Nature-Based Coastal Defence. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1827–1842. doi:10.1111/gcb.14063

Narayan, S., Beck, M. W., Reguero, B. G., Losada, I. J., van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N., et al. (2016). The Effectiveness, Costs and Coastal protection Benefits of Natural and Nature-Based Defences. PLOS ONE 11, e0154735. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154735

Nichols, C. R., Wright, L. D., Bainbridge, S. J., Cosby, A., Hénaff, A., Loftis, J. D., et al. (2019). Collaborative Science to Enhance Coastal Resilience and Adaptation. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 404. doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00404

NRC (2014). Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf Coasts . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press . doi:10.17226/18811

NYS-GOSR (2021). New York State Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery, Living Breakwaters Benefit Cost Analysis . New York, NY: Wisp USA Solutions, Inc . Project No.: LSC2043436.07.

O’Shaughnessy, K. A., Hawkins, S. J., Evans, A. J., Hanley, M. E., Lunt, P., Thompson, R. C., et al. (2020). Design Catalogue for Eco-Engineering of Coastal Artificial Structures: a Multifunctional Approach for Stakeholders and End-Users. Urban Ecosyst. 23, 431–443. doi:10.1007/s11252-019-00924-z

Paul, J. D., Buytaert, W., Allen, S., Ballesteros‐Cánovas, J. A., Bhusal, J., Cieslik, K., et al. (2018). Citizen Science for Hydrological Risk Reduction and Resilience Building. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 5, e1262. doi:10.1002/wat2.1262

Piazza, B. P., Banks, P. D., and La Peyre, M. K. (2005). The Potential for Created Oyster Shell Reefs as a Sustainable Shoreline protection Strategy in Louisiana. Restor Ecol. 13 (3), 499–506. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100x.2005.00062.x

Reguero, B. G., Beck, M. W., Bresch, D. N., Calil, J., and Meliane, I. (2018). Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of Nature-Based and Coastal Adaptation: a Case Study from the Gulf Coast of the United States. PLOS ONE 13, e0192132. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192132

Reguero, B. G., Beck, M. W., Schmid, D., Stadtmüller, D., Raepple, J., Schüssele, S., et al. (2020). Financing Coastal Resilience by Combining Nature-Based Risk Reduction with Insurance. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106487. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106487

Rigolon, A., and Németh, J. (2018). “We’re not in the Business Of Housing:” Environmental Gentrification And The Nonprofitization Of Green Infrastructure Projects. Cities 81, 71–80.

Saleh, F., and Weinstein, M. P. (2016). The Role of Nature-Based Infrastructure (NBI) in Coastal Resiliency Planning: a Literature Review. J. Environ. Manage. 183, 1088–1098. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.077

Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A. J., Smith, A., and Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the Value and Limits of Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change and Other Global Challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190120. doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0120

Smith, A. (2020). 2010–2019: A Landmark Decade of US Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . Available at: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2010-2019-landmark-decade-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate . (Accessed April 4, 2022).

Smith, C. S., Rudd, M. E., Gittman, R. K., Melvin, E. C., Patterson, V. S., Renzi, J. J., et al. (2020). Coming to Terms with Living Shorelines: a Scoping Review of Novel Restoration Strategies for Shoreline protection. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 434. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00434

South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Adaptive Management Plan. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Adaptive Management Plan. 2007. Available at: https://www.southbayrestoration.org/sites/default/files/documents/appendix_d_final_amp.pdf. . (Accessed April 4, 2022).

Spalding, M. D., Ruffo, S., Lacambra, C., Meliane, I., Hale, L. Z., Shepard, C. C., et al. (2014). The Role of Ecosystems in Coastal protection: Adapting to Climate Change and Coastal Hazards. Ocean Coastal Manag. 90, 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.007

Stive, M. J. F., de Schipper, M. A., Luijendijk, A. P., Aarninkhof, S. G. J., van Gelder-Maas, C., Van Thiel de Vries, J. S. M., et al. (2013). A New Alternative to Saving Our Beaches from Sea-Level Rise: The Sand Engine. J. Coastal Res. 290, 1001–1008. doi:10.2112/jcoastres-d-13-00070.1

Subtidal Goals. 2010. San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report: Conservation Planning for the Submerged Areas of the Bay. Available at: https://www.sfbaysubtidal.org/PDFS/Full%20Report.pdf . (Accessed April 4, 2022).

Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, K., and Bamford, H. (2015). Future of Our Coasts: the Potential for Natural and Hybrid Infrastructure to Enhance the Resilience of Our Coastal Communities, Economies and Ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Pol. 51, 137–148. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006

Sweet, W. V., Dusek, G., Obeysekera, J., and Marra, J. J. (2018). Patterns and Projections of High Tide Flooding along the U.S. Coastline Using a Common Impact Threshold . Technical Report, NOAA NOS CO-OPS 086.

The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) (2018). Guide for Applying Working with Nature to Navigation Infrastructure Projects . Brussels: Environmental Commission, PIANC , 97. Working Group 176.

Trulio, L., Clark, D., Richie, S., and Hutzel, A. (2007). Adaptive Management Plan: Science Team Report for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project .

Tschirky, P., Brashear, P., Sella, I., and Manson, T. (2018). Living Breakwaters: Designing for Resiliency. Int. Conf. Coastal. Eng. 36, 50. doi:10.9753/icce.v36.risk.50

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Texas General Land Office (2020). Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Feasibility Study: Draft Report Galveston District; Galveston: US Army Corps of Engineers . Available at: https://coastalstudy.texas.gov/draft-proposal/index.html .

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2021). International Guidelines on NNBF for Flood Risk Management . Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer and Research Center .

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2019). New York – New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study Interim Report . Available at: https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/civilworks/projects/ny/coast/NYNJHAT/NYNJHAT%20Interim%20Report%20-%20Main%20Report%20Feb%202019.pdf?ver=2019-02-19-165223-023 .

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2015). North Atlantic Comprehensive Coast Study . USACE, North Atlantic Division .

Valoppi, L. 2018. Phase 1 Studies Summary of Major Findings of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project , South San Francisco Bay, California. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1039. 68pp.

Van Slobbe, E., de Vriend, H. J., Aarninkhof, S., Lulofs, K., de Vries, M., and Dircke, P. (2013). Building with Nature: in Search of Resilient Storm Surge protection Strategies. Nat. Hazards 66, 1461–1480. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0612-3

Van Veelen, P., Voorendt, M., and Van Der Zwet, C. (2015). Design Challenges of Multifunctional Flood Defences. Res. Urbanism Ser. 3, 275–292. doi:10.7480/RIUS.3.841

IPCC (2021). in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Editors V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Bergeret al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ). In Press.

Vuik, V., van Vuren, S., Borsje, B. W., van Wesenbeeck, B. K., and Jonkman, S. N. (2018). Assessing Safety of Nature-Based Flood Defenses: Dealing with Extremes and Uncertainties. Coastal Eng. 139, 47–64. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2018.05.002

Waryszak, P., Gavoille, A., Whitt, A. A., Kelvin, J., and Macreadie, P. I. (2021). Combining gray and green Infrastructure to Improve Coastal Resilience: Lessons Learnt from Hybrid Flood Defenses. Coastal Eng. J. 63, 335–350. doi:10.1080/21664250.2021.1920278

Wijsman, K., Auyeung, D. S. N., Brashear, P., Branco, B. F., Graziano, K., Groffman, P. M., et al. (2021). Operationalizing Resilience: Co-creating a Framework to Monitor Hard, Natural, and Nature-Based Shoreline Features in New York State. E&S 26 (3), 10. doi:10.5751/ES-12182-260310

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., and Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green Space, Public Health, and Environmental justice: The challenge of Making Cities 'just green Enough'. Landscape Urban Plann. 125, 234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

Keywords: coastal resiliency, restoration, stakeholder engagement, NNBF design, NNBF monitoring

Citation: Palinkas CM, Orton P, Hummel MA, Nardin W, Sutton-Grier AE, Harris L, Gray M, Li M, Ball D, Burks-Copes K, Davlasheridze M, De Schipper M, George DA, Halsing D, Maglio C, Marrone J, McKay SK, Nutters H, Orff K, Taal M, Van Oudenhoven APE, Veatch W and Williams T (2022) Innovations in Coastline Management With Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF): Lessons Learned From Three Case Studies. Front. Built Environ. 8:814180. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.814180

Received: 12 November 2021; Accepted: 25 March 2022; Published: 27 April 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Palinkas, Orton, Hummel, Nardin, Sutton-Grier, Harris, Gray, Li, Ball, Burks-Copes, Davlasheridze, De Schipper, George, Halsing, Maglio, Marrone, McKay, Nutters, Orff, Taal, Van Oudenhoven, Veatch and Williams. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Cindy M. Palinkas, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Natural and Nature-Based Features for Flood Risk Management

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Perspective
  • Published: 17 August 2020

Integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy

  • Jan-Gunnar Winther   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9466-5772 1 , 2 ,
  • Minhan Dai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0550-0701 3 ,
  • Therese Rist   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7010-2457 1 ,
  • Alf Håkon Hoel 4 , 5 ,
  • Yangfan Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5419-7051 6 ,
  • Amy Trice 7 ,
  • Karyn Morrissey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7259-1047 8 ,
  • Marie Antonette Juinio-Meñez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5420-387X 9 ,
  • Leanne Fernandes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2060-9337 10   nAff15 ,
  • Sebastian Unger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5478-7214 11 ,
  • Fabio Rubio Scarano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-9882 12 ,
  • Patrick Halpin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5845-3588 13 &
  • Sandra Whitehouse 14  

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume  4 ,  pages 1451–1458 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

94 Citations

133 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Environmental studies
  • Ocean sciences
  • Science, technology and society
  • Scientific community
  • Social sciences

The rapidly evolving ocean economy, driven by human needs for food, energy, transportation and recreation, has led to unprecedented pressures on the ocean that are further amplified by climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution. The need for better governance of human activities in the ocean space has been widely recognized for years, and is now also incorporated in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Even so, many challenges relating to the implementation of existing governance frameworks exist. Here, we argue that integrated ocean management (IOM) should be the key overarching approach—building upon and connecting existing sectoral governance efforts—for achieving a sustainable ocean economy. IOM is a holistic, ecosystem-based and knowledge-based approach that aims to ensure the sustainability and resilience of marine ecosystems while integrating and balancing different ocean uses to optimize the overall ocean economy. We discuss examples of IOM in practice from areas where preconditions differ substantially, and identify six universal opportunities for action that can help achieve a sustainable ocean economy.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

coastal management case study

A transition to sustainable ocean governance

Tanya Brodie Rudolph, Mary Ruckelshaus, … Philile Mbatha

coastal management case study

Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate

Enric Sala, Juan Mayorga, … Jane Lubchenco

coastal management case study

Principles for transformative ocean governance

Amanda T. Lombard, Jai Clifford-Holmes, … Elisa Morgera

Human needs for food, energy, transportation, recreation and other services from the ocean are increasing rapidly. As a result, the ocean economy is growing at an unprecedented rate 1 . Existing ocean industries are expanding, and with innovation and technology, new ones are appearing 2 , 3 . Following the unprecedented growth in economic activities relating to the ocean, the need for a sustainable concept where socioeconomic development can occur without environmental degradation or inequity is widely recognized 4 , 5 . Today, sectoral interests and conflicts between short-term economic gains or immediate needs versus long-term prosperity and a healthy ocean are increasingly apparent, creating dilemmas for governance 6 , 7 . This situation is further complicated by compounding pressures such as climate change, pollution and widespread loss of biodiversity 8 . In light of this, opportunities for and challenges to achieving sustainable development of our ocean and seas have reached the top of the international agenda in forums such as the G20 9 , the United Nations (UN) Ocean conferences, the World Economic Forum, the Our Ocean conferences 10 , and the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 . They are also prominent in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 14 , 15 .

Here, we argue that there is an increasing need for a holistic, ecosystem-based and knowledge-based overarching approach that ensures the sustainability and resilience of marine ecosystems. This approach must at the same time integrate and balance different ocean uses to optimize the overall ocean economy, as well as maintain and further develop the sector-based management required for effective management of ocean industries (Fig. 1 ). Integrated ocean management (IOM) offers such an approach. We identify universal characteristics of successful IOM, and the need for tailor-made solutions to address different contexts including local knowledge, environmental conditions, scaling-up of local actions, and the need for data sharing and capacity building.

figure 1

Centre for the Ocean and the Arctic.

The goal of IOM is to integrate and balance various ocean uses and environmental aspects to obtain a ‘healthy and wealthy’ ocean: long-term, sustainable use of ocean resources in ways that preserve the health and resilience of marine ecosystems and improve livelihoods and jobs, balancing protection and production. IOM brings together relevant actors from government, business, academia and civil society from the entire spectrum of ocean-related human activities (for example, fishing, recreation, petroleum, shipping, renewable energy, aquaculture, tourism and mining) to interact toward a sustainable future for our ocean environment. A key to successful IOM is the use of a knowledge-based and ecosystem-based approach. Stakeholder engagement and coordinated decision-making, particularly with ocean businesses, is another central aspect of successful IOM.

Opportunities for sustainable ocean management

The goal of IOM is to preserve the long-term health and resilience of marine ecosystems while improving livelihoods and creating jobs that support a sustainable ocean economy by managing ocean resources in an integrated way (Box 1 ) 16 . Developing an integrated and adaptive framework for IOM requires forming partnerships between public authorities, businesses, civil societies, academia and the financial sector—the so-called penta-helix model 17 .

The global framework for ocean governance, the centrepiece of which is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 18 , has evolved considerably over the last decades, responding to technological developments, increasing demands for natural resources and a growing use of ocean space for human activities 19 . The basis for UNCLOS is coastal state jurisdiction over their 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs) (Fig. 2 ). UNCLOS-related implementation agreements have been negotiated for deep seabed minerals 20 and for fisheries 21 , and governance bodies and legal instruments are in place for a number of other specific ocean issues such as shipping and pollution 22 , 23 . The legal framework, however, remains inadequate with regard to protecting marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and was not devised with the effects of climate change in mind 24 . Overall, implementation is hindered by inadequate knowledge and capacity shortages, incomplete legislation and enforcement failures, and a lack of political will to prioritize the actions needed to implement the international agreements 4 . Ocean management currently often occurs in silos, sector by sector, with poor coordination between ministries and other government bodies that do not have an overarching mandate or mechanism to harmonize the actions and policies. With increasing use of and pressures on the ocean, we now also need mechanisms to address the cumulative effects of economic development and environmental change, as well as adaptive management tools to address climate change impacts (Fig. 3 ).

figure 2

Norwegian Polar Institute.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the basis of the global framework for ocean governance. It establishes a legal order for the oceans and seas where coastal states have sovereign rights over the natural resources in a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf also beyond 200 nautical miles. The mineral resources on the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (‘the Area’) are the common heritage of mankind, and the International Seabed Authority is tasked with their management. Integrated ocean management can be implemented across several ocean economy sectors, jurisdictions and spatial scales. This may take the form of localized ocean management within national waters, sector-defined ocean management across adjacent jurisdictions, at regional seas or at ocean basin scales, or international ocean management occurring across large ocean areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including in the Area.

figure 3

Norwegian Oil and Gas Association.

The ocean economy is growing alongside our need for food, energy, transportation and recreation from the ocean. Existing ocean industries expand while new ones, such as offshore floating wind and sub-sea mineral extraction, appear. This is illustrated here by the Norwegian Arctic, where a number of business sectors share the same ocean space. At the same time, new challenges are emerging as a result of climate change, loss of biodiversity, pollution and extractive activities. Thus, our ocean is now facing these pressures at unprecedented rates and magnitudes. In this study, we find the common denominator is that increasing uses of and pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems drive the need to consider the totality of pressures on the ocean.

In 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted 17 SDGs as part of the 2030 Agenda. Several of the interlinked SDGs are essential in relation to the ocean and seas and contain specific targets and timetables for achieving them. Goal 14—‘Life Below Water’—addresses marine issues specifically 14 . This goal provides opportunities to both facilitate concrete actions for ocean sustainability and foster greater integration in ocean governance.

In this analysis, a set of case studies from places ranging from developed coastal states to small island developing states illustrates differences in implementation goals, jurisdiction types and management scales of IOM in practice. These case studies provide insights into how locally tailored governance can be implemented. In addition, we identify general opportunities for action for achieving successful IOM.

Box 1 Definition of integrated ocean management and related planning and management approaches

Integrated ocean management (IOM) is a holistic, ecosystem-based and knowledge-based approach to planning and managing the use of ocean space, with the goal of balancing various uses and needs to achieve a sustainable ocean economy along with healthy ecosystems 13 . Hence, stakeholder engagement is essential to IOM. The tools to achieve IOM are plentiful and the large number of concepts related to IOM can be confusing, but ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning are at its core.

The below list is not exhaustive but provides an overview of the key means to achieving thoughtful planning and management in coastal and marine areas. IOM uses a variety of these tools. These ideas, terms and concepts have evolved through time and have had different histories in different places. They are not necessarily interchangeable, and they often overlap.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) , also referred to as an ‘ ecosystem approach ’, is central to IOM and defined as the management of natural resources focusing on the health, productivity and resilience of a specific ecosystem, group of ecosystems, or selected natural assets as the nucleus of management 81 , 82 , 83 . It recognizes the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including with humans, and seeks integration of management planning and implementation across sectoral agencies 84 .

Marine spatial planning ( MSP ), also known as ‘ maritime spatial planning ’ and ‘ coastal and marine spatial planning ’, is a process used to create geospatial plans that identify what spaces of the ocean are appropriate for different uses and activities. MSP is widely used for setting targets for and implementing ecosystem-based management 85 .

Integrated coastal zone management ( ICZM ), also called ‘ integrated coastal management ’, is ‘the process of managing the coast and nearshore waters in an integrated and comprehensive manner with the goal of achieving conservation and sustainable use’ 85 . ICZM covers the full cycle, including information collection, planning, decision-making, management and implementation 86 .

Adaptive ocean management is ‘a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices toward defined goals by learning from the outcomes of previous policies and practices’ 85 . By scheduling periodic reviews of and updates to management plans, adaptive ocean management acknowledges that policies must be adjusted as conditions and knowledge change.

Area-based measures are important tools in ocean management and can be used in all approaches outlined here. Area-based management tools include marine protected areas (MPAs) —‘clearly defined geographical space[s], recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ 87 .

Integrated ocean management in practice

The starting point for this analysis is a study of IOM in practice in different parts of the world: China, the Coral Triangle (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste), Norway, the Seychelles and the United States. The five case studies represent vastly different situations with respect to climatic and oceanic conditions, geographical scales, the nature of economic activities, and political contexts and regulatory environments. Nevertheless, there are important commonalities that provide lessons for other contexts. The common denominator is that increasing uses of and pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems drive the need to consider the totality of pressures on the entire ocean space (Fig. 1 ).

The first lesson learned is that climate change is manifesting itself in each of the areas studied—in tropical, temperate and Arctic marine environments—posing a major challenge to ocean management. In this respect, IOM is a way of addressing multiple ocean uses while integrating the impacts of climate change into management. The Seychelles is an example of a state that has incorporated climate change adaptation into a marine spatial planning process to support both its ocean economy and environmental goals. The goals of the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan Initiative are to address climate change adaptation, protect 30% of the Seychelles’ waters, and support the Blue Economy Roadmap and other national strategies 25 .

Second, information is key. It is critical to have robust data series on the evolution of essential environmental variables as well as on economic activities. Also, such data must be translated into information that is useful for management. Information should be transparent, accessible, scientifically sound, updated and in appropriate formats. The Coral Triangle Initiative is an example where formal and informal platforms for data sharing and capacity building have been important for facilitating regional and broader-scale policy support and frameworks to harmonize various national action plans 26 .

A third lesson is that implementation—moving from paper to practice—is essential. Foundation in law is, however, not a prerequisite for successful IOM. In some cases, legal authority can make it easier to define objectives and goals, as was the case with Massachusetts in the United States. In other places, such as Rhode Island in the United States, reinterpreting existing legal frameworks created the mechanism for IOM and has been a constructive way forward 27 . A different example is Norway, where sector-based legislation combined with overarching management plans rely on political will rather than on a separate legal basis for IOM 28 .

Fourth, stakeholder involvement is critical to both ensure that the practical information needed to develop IOM measures is available, and build the legitimacy required for effective implementation. For example, in the Coral Triangle, stakeholder engagement has been ensured by letting local community members manage marine protected areas (MPAs) 29 , 30 . This approach has successfully alleviated the previous perception of MPAs as serving conservation or protectionist interests, not human interests, thus driving a top-down, nature-centric agenda that alienates local communities and ends up marginalizing conservation. In community-based MPAs in Papua New Guinea that protect grouper spawning aggregations, there was a tenfold increase in the reproductive population compared with an unprotected site after five years, as a result of the initiative 31 .

Fifth, IOM needs to be institutionalized. There has to be a designated process for determining how to consider the various pressures on and uses of ocean space in a comprehensive manner and make decisions on that basis. For example, in Xiamen, China, the municipality initiated an integrated coastal management leadership group consisting of the mayor and officials from different governmental departments, under which an ocean office was established and tasked with organizing regular meetings with ocean-related sectors within aquaculture, transportation, construction, and science and technology 32 .

A final lesson is that due regard needs to be given to context. It is critically important to tailor IOM to the characteristics and needs of the region in question. The concrete economic activities, community needs, societal goals and environmental pressures should be the point of departure for the development of IOM. This is a shared experience across all the case studies.

Based on these complementary case studies—which call for tailor-made solutions—and the scientific literature in the field, we have also identified six general opportunities for action for achieving successful IOM: harnessing knowledge, establishing partnerships between public and private sectors, strengthening stakeholder engagement and stewardship, improving capacity building, implementing regulatory frameworks, and encompassing climate change and other environmental changes in adaptive management systems (Fig. 4 ).

figure 4

Although successful implementation of IOM needs to reflect local conditions, we suggest the following six universal opportunities for action to help achieve integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy: harness science and knowledge; establish partnerships between public and private sectors; strengthen stakeholder engagement and stewardship; improve capacity building; implement regulatory frameworks; and encompass climate change and other environmental changes in adaptive management systems.

Harnessing knowledge

There are large knowledge gaps in the following areas: the abundance of and biological interactions among marine living resources; the consequences of existing and future human activities; the opportunities in the digital and technological revolutions; and the consequences of climate change, biodiversity loss and marine litter on marine ecosystems 30 , 33 . The upcoming UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) 34 is an opportunity to strengthen the knowledge system needed for ocean policy and action at various levels of governance. The Decade seeks to secure the clean, safe, healthy, resilient, productive, predictable, transparent and accessible ocean we need for the future we want.

The 2017 Global Ocean Science Report demonstrates clearly that many countries lack fundamental scientific capacity to support their efforts on ocean governance 35 . In these cases, scientific capacity is needed to assemble the information required to manage marine ecosystems and economic activities, and to underpin the establishment and implementation of regulatory measures. Tools are needed to develop, strengthen and coordinate the management of human activities in marine ecosystems. These include increasing science and monitoring efforts, knowledge sharing, and the transfer of technology and digital infrastructure—tools that are especially crucial in the least-developed countries and small island developing states 35 . Relevant and accessible data and clearly defined goals for management, coupled with research and science plans, are important for achieving and advancing IOM 36 .

To address this, we recommend strengthening the global ocean knowledge system—including social science, which is often lacking 37 —and building on the UN Regular Process 38 and the efforts of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) 35 , 39 . An important initiative could be to follow up on the 2015 40 and 2020 41 editions of the UN World Ocean Assessment. Strengthening the role of the IOC would also build on already existing structures to enhance the attention given to marine science and help generate the resources needed to develop scientific knowledge, scientific capacity building worldwide, and effective frameworks for transferring knowledge to decision-makers and other key societal actors in developing countries. A process and platform could be the UN Decade. To be effective, such efforts at the global level need to be complemented by actions at the regional and national levels. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is a good model for how regional ocean science cooperation can benefit actual ocean management.

Establishing partnerships between public and private sectors

Currently, investments, infrastructure and businesses are developed within ocean industries that have differing definitions of and standards and visions for achieving sustainability and governance 4 . In practice, long-term sustainability can be achieved only if best practices are applied across the public, scientific and private sectors and where productive partnerships are established (Fig. 1 ). IOM is an approach that brings together relevant actors from government, business, academia and civil society, from the entire spectrum of activities—including petroleum, fishing, aquaculture, shipping, renewable energy, mining, tourism and recreation—to collaborate for a sustainable future for our marine environment. Good governance and partnerships can bring long-term solutions that advance the economy, develop societies and ensure environmental health in accordance with the SDGs 15 , 42 .

In the context of IOM, it is particularly important to engage ocean businesses at the global, national and local levels. In recent years, ocean businesses have repeatedly joined forces for sustainability 43 . One example is the UN Global Compact Sustainable Ocean Business Action Platform (the ‘UN Global Compact’), which has developed principles and guidelines for sustainable ocean businesses that several of the largest ocean-related enterprises globally have signed on to 44 .

We suggest advancing and clarifying the responsibilities of the private sector through a set of ‘Ocean Principles’ for a sustainable ocean economy, modelled after the Carbon Principles and developed by the businesses themselves. The UN Global Compact could serve as a starting point and inspiring model. A further development would be to give market benefits to private companies that are able to develop transparent and traceable supply chains demonstrating sustainability and contributing to the implementation of the SDGs. By doing so, businesses would empower consumers to change the markets 8 , 12 .

Strengthening stakeholder engagement

Defining and implementing sustainable solutions in local communities requires the knowledge, involvement and stewardship of local stakeholders 45 . Further, one could argue that the agreement made by the world community on achieving the SDGs will fail if we are unsuccessful in implementing a large number of locally relevant projects 4 .

The case studies demonstrate that active community participation and inclusion of traditional and local knowledge have proven useful at the local level for establishing and operating ocean governance 13 .

Planning at the local level—especially in developing countries—requires taking approaches that are tailored to the diverse environmental and socioeconomic contexts and governance systems in these regions 7 . For example, the approaches need to address the complexity of different governance regimes, ecological scaling and context-specific situations 46 . Developing such strategies and implementing them also requires time, resources and political will that sometimes are limited or absent 47 , 48 .

When building strong local stakeholder involvement, it is important to design well-managed engagement processes that consider the cultural, scientific, societal, economic and political contexts that underpin robust stakeholder participation 49 . An example of such an approach is the Coral Triangle Initiative, a formal intergovernmental partnership 26 , 50 . We suggest that governments support the active involvement of local and traditional communities in all stages of IOM planning and development at the local level.

Improving capacity building

Capacity building enhances scientific and regulatory proficiency as well as institutional and collaborative capabilities. It is widely recognized that capacity building is critical to strengthening ocean governance 51 , 52 . In many cases, the ability to implement existing rights and obligations following from international agreements is hampered by inadequate science, weak regulatory frameworks and the poor enforcement of those frameworks due to a wide variety of factors including lack of political will 53 . The importance of building resilient and effective institutions capable of performing these tasks can hardly be overstated 54 . Ocean literacy and education pertaining to ocean uses and management are also critical 55 .

In this regard, it is imperative to make use of knowledge about climate change, biodiversity loss and marine pollution 11 . The scientific capacity needed to implement the management principles embodied in international governance frameworks is severely lacking in many countries 35 . Capacity building, primarily based on but also amplifying the provisions of existing regional and intergovernmental organizations and institutions, therefore needs to remain at the top of the international agenda.

At the national level, it is essential that government agencies involved in ocean management are properly institutionalized, and have the skills, knowledge, resources and authority to address challenges relating to the ocean and communities depending on them in a long-term, integrated manner 56 , 57 . New technologies combined with public transparency creates opportunities for monitoring inappropriate behaviour at sea, including practical and inexpensive solutions such as Global Fishing Watch, which supports governmental enforcement efforts against illegal fishing, among other needs 58 . Additionally, the ocean science enterprise is advancing technologies that allow us to collect scientific data with less cost and higher efficiency than ever before 59 , 60 . One example is the complex adaptive systems framework, which acknowledges the interconnectedness of social and ecological systems 42 . Having transparency; solutions tailored to the local context; data standards and metadata in place; and new, innovative ways of extracting data are key to capacity building 61 . The Northeast Regional Ocean Data Portal is an example of transparent data within an IOM framework. Regional cooperation can also be an effective vehicle for strengthening the role of science and providing advice for management, as demonstrated by, for example, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in the North Atlantic and the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association in the Western Indian Ocean 62 , 63 .

Implementing regulatory frameworks

Failure to implement existing international instruments is perhaps the most important weakness of ocean governance systems 64 . The global ocean governance framework is supplemented by many regional instruments 46 , often combined with national legislation. However, implementation of the existing legal frameworks is often inadequate and ineffective 65 , and important legal gaps with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) remain (Fig. 2 ) 24 .

There is also a need for subnational action plans and strong leadership to achieve successful implementation of IOM 25 . Important work is underway to address these shortcomings at the global and regional levels of governance, including efforts to strengthen the implementation of regulations from regional fisheries management organizations, negotiations on BBNJ, and the development of a seabed mining code by the International Seabed Authority 66 .

A leading principle should be the effective implementation of international agreements in domestic legislation and practices, including for activities in the high seas. In this respect, regional cooperation is essential. In practice, we suggest that regulations for managing human activities in the high seas 67 be coherent and compatible with—and at least as strict as—those that apply in areas under national jurisdiction. Developing a strong, legally binding instrument for BBNJ, as well as ratifying the key international instruments for ocean governance and coordinating implementation of their provision, including UNCLOS and related instruments, is a precondition for this. Furthermore, we recommend that regulatory frameworks for areas both beyond and under national jurisdiction reflect the connectivity of ecosystems, which cross borders and jurisdictions, building on the best available science.

Developing adaptive solutions

Marine ecosystems are by nature very dynamic over space and time 68 . There are strong variations in physical, chemical and biological characteristics with depth as a third dimension, unlike in terrestrial systems 69 . Thus, ocean governance needs to reflect the dynamism of the ocean 64 , 70 .

Today, the dynamic nature of the ocean is amplified by climate change, which, in our view, is the most serious of all pressures the ocean is currently facing 11 , 71 . Many regions already suffer from the effects of climate change, especially the least-developed countries and small island states where coastal communities and even whole countries are threatened 72 . These challenges are further exacerbated when ocean management systems are not holistic and adaptable 73 . We argue that forward-looking, adaptive solutions where risk is explicitly considered will become an even more important element of IOM.

Climate change is manifesting itself in tropical, temperate and polar marine environments 71 . Sea level rise, ocean warming and deoxygenation, ocean acidification, changing storm intensities, and melting sea ice, as well as migrating species, are examples of consequences of climate change already representing major challenges to ocean management 11 . Current climate projections indicate that societies must prepare for an even more disturbing situation in the future 71 . In this respect, IOM represents an important tool for addressing multiple uses while considering the impacts of climate change and improving the resilience of marine ecosystems.

With increasing uses of and pressures on the ocean, concerns regarding the cumulative impacts on marine ecosystems have grown 74 , 75 . UNCLOS recognizes these concerns on a general basis, while some national governance plans address them specifically and take the approach that cumulative impacts need to be an integrated part of IOM 76 . On this basis, we recommend that IOM is used as a way to capture the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems as well as the connectivity and differences between land and ocean in an integrated, adaptive and forward-looking manner 64 . Thus, we suggest that ocean governance considers expected future changes in the ocean environment by using the best available scientific knowledge on climate change 77 , 78 . For example, due to climate change, a static approach to establishing MPAs may lose its effect over time in preserving the ecosystem values it was originally established to preserve 79 .

Conclusions

We argue that there is a pressing need to take an integrated approach to ocean management, and identify several central components for successful IOM. Achieving a healthy, productive and resilient ocean requires taking a holistic perspective on ocean use and management, and effectively implementing relevant national and international management measures. Given the current levels of pressures on many marine regions in our ocean 74 , few human activities can be viewed in isolation. To preserve ocean health and fully capitalize on the economic potential of the ocean in a sustainable way, we must consider the cumulative impact of all human activities in the ocean, as well as how those activities affect each other and other issues 13 . The need for an integrated, ecosystem-based and knowledge-based approach to ocean governance is more pressing than ever.

It is, however, also critically important to further develop and maintain effective sector-based management. Effective regulation of, for example, shipping, petroleum-related activities, or pollution can be achieved only by implementing dedicated and precise regulatory measures and assigning competent agencies to implement them.

The statuses of marine ecosystems and their properties and characteristics vary considerably 80 . IOM enables an understanding of the totality of ocean uses and pressures and provides guidance for how to prioritize among these various uses. Governance solutions need to be tailored to the characteristics and problems of the different marine regions—one size does not fit all. Understanding context is essential.

Governments, in partnership with ocean industries, need to ensure that industries do not degrade the environment they and others depend on. It is critical that short-sighted solutions with negative environmental impacts are replaced with long-term solutions. To this end, important knowledge often exists but is not used in decision-making for several reasons, including a lack of efficient science–policy interfaces 4 . The precautionary principle should be applied where knowledge is insufficient and where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage. Also, effective ocean governance must consider advancements in technology, the impacts of climate change, and the dynamic nature of the ocean and seas, as well as the interactions and synergies between land, ocean and people 19 .

Furthermore, the need for enhanced regional collaboration is critical. Ecosystems and economic activities often occur in several jurisdictions and across national boundaries. Also, activities in the marine realm can have widespread, cross-border impacts 3 . In the case of such transboundary situations—for example, in fisheries management 7 or in the prevention of marine pollution—regional cooperation is necessary to address the problems at an appropriate geographical scale. At the local level, connectivity among people and institutions plays a vital role in ensuring sustainable ocean governance.

Finally, climate change represents a challenge vastly larger than anything we have faced before. The ocean is intimately connected to climate and vice versa 71 . Perhaps the most important issue in the future is therefore our ability to efficiently take action on climate change 8 . Questions of adaptation and risk management loom large in this respect and are critical dimensions of all opportunities for action discussed in this Perspective.

The Ocean Economy in 2030 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en

Castro-Santos, L., Rute Bento, A., Silva, D., Salvação, N. & Guedes Soares, C. Economic feasibility of floating offshore wind farms in the north of Spain. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8 , 58 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Jouffray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A. V., Österblom, H. & Nyström, M. The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2 , 43–54 (2020).

Bennett, N. J. et al. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 991–993 (2019).

United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) (UNESCO, 2019); https://www.oceandecade.org/

Visbeck, M. Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future. Nat. Commun. 9 , 690 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cohen, P. J. et al. Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 171 (2019).

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (World Resources Institute, 2019); https://oceanpanel.org/climate

Sverdrup, U. et al. Improving Future Oceans Governance: Governance of Global Goods in an Age of Global Shifts T20 Policy Brief (T20, 2019); https://go.nature.com/3f1IS8k

Neumann, B. & Unger, S. From voluntary commitments to ocean sustainability. Science 363 , 35–36 (2019).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gaines, S. et al. The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy (World Resources Institute, 2019); https://go.nature.com/3gcZCK9

Costello, C. et al. The Future of Food from the Sea (World Resources Institute, 2019); https://go.nature.com/38hqd5V

Winther, J.-G. et al. Integrated Ocean Management (World Resources Institute, 2020); https://go.nature.com/3fFAtYM

Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas and Marine Resources. Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2016); https://go.nature.com/3izHuMs

Neumann, B., Ott, K. & Kenchington, R. Strong sustainability in coastal areas: a conceptual interpretation of SDG 14. Sustain. Sci. 12 , 1019–1035 (2017).

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. High-profile international commitments for ocean protection: empty promises or meaningful progress? Mar. Policy 105 , 52–66 (2019).

Widowati, S. et al. Penta helix model to develop ecotourism. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 3 , 31–46 (2019).

Google Scholar  

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations, 1982).

Klinger, D. H. et al. The mechanics of blue growth: management of oceanic natural resource use with multiple, interacting sectors. Mar. Policy 87 , 356–362 (2018).

Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (United Nations, 1994).

The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations, 1995).

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (International Maritime Organization, 1973).

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (International Maritime Organization, 1972).

De Santo, E. M. et al. Protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: an Earth system governance perspective. Earth Syst. Gov. 2 , 100029 (2019).

The Initiative (Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan Initiative, accessed 1 November 2019); https://seymsp.com/the-initiative/

History of CTI-CFF (The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security, accessed 1 November 2019); http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/about

McCann, J. Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan Vol. 1 (Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, 2010).

Integrated Management Plan of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 2006).

Horigue, V., Aliño, P. M., White, A. T. & Pressey, R. L. Marine protected area networks in the Philippines: trends and challenges for establishment and governance. Ocean Coast. Manag. 64 , 15–26 (2012).

Mills, M., Weeks, R., Pressey, R. L., Foale, S. & Ban, N. C. A mismatch of scales: challenges in planning for implementation of marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle. Conserv. Lett. 3 , 291–303 (2010).

Hamilton, R. J., Potuku, T. & Montambault, J. R. Community-based conservation results in the recovery of reef fish spawning aggregations in the Coral Triangle. Biol. Conserv. 144 , 1850–1858 (2011).

Xue, X., Hong, H. & Charles, A. T. Cumulative environmental impacts and integrated coastal management: the case of Xiamen, China. J. Environ. Manag. 71 , 271–283 (2004).

Khan, A. & Amelie, V. Assessing climate change readiness in Seychelles: implications for ecosystem-based adaptation mainstreaming and marine spatial planning. Reg. Environ. Change 15 , 721–733 (2015).

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) (UNESCO, 2018).

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO) Global Ocean Science Report - The Current Status of Ocean Science around the World (eds Valdés, L. et al.) (UNESCO Publishing, 2017).

Lester, S. E. et al. Science in support of ecosystem-based management for the US West Coast and beyond. Biol. Conserv. 143 , 576–587 (2010).

Le Cornu, E., Kittinger, J. N., Koehn, J. Z., Finkbeiner, E. M. & Crowder, L. B. Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning: social data in coastal and ocean planning. Conserv. Biol. 28 , 902–911 (2014).

Regular Process (United Nations, accessed 6 February 2020); https://www.un.org/regularprocess/

Evans, K. et al. The global integrated world ocean assessment: linking observations to science and policy across multiple scales. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 298 (2019).

The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment. Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, Including Socioeconomic Aspects (United Nations, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2O62jkC

Second Cycle of the Regular Process (United Nations, accessed 6 February 2020); https://go.nature.com/2O4U9sJ

Lubchenco, J., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., Reimer, J. N. & Levin, S. A. The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 14507–14514 (2016).

Kronfeld-Goharani, U. Maritime economy: insights on corporate visions and strategies towards sustainability. Ocean Coast. Manag. 165 , 126–140 (2018).

United Nations Global Compact (United Nations, accessed 1 November 2019); https://www.unglobalcompact.org/

Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F. & Armitage, D. Community science: a typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 106 , 77–86 (2020).

Green, A. L. et al. Designing marine reserves for fisheries management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change adaptation. Coast. Manag. 42 , 143–159 (2014).

Bennett, N. J. In political seas: engaging with political ecology in the ocean and coastal environment. Coast. Manag. 47 , 67–87 (2019).

Rudd, M. A. et al. Ocean ecosystem-based management mandates and implementation in the North Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 5 , 485 (2018).

Weeks, R. et al. Ten things to get right for marine conservation planning in the Coral Triangle [Version 3; Peer Review: 2 Approved]. F1000Research 3 , 91 (2015).

Asaad, I., Lundquist, C. J., Erdmann, M. V., Van Hooidonk, R. & Costello, M. J. Designating spatial priorities for marine biodiversity conservation in the Coral Triangle. Front. Mar. Sci. 5 , 400 (2018).

Rice, J. in Science, Information, and Policy Interface for Effective Coastal and Ocean Management (eds MacDonald, B. H. et al.) 75–102 (CRC Press, 2016).

Michalena, E., Straza, T. R. A., Singh, P., Morris, C. W. & Hills, J. Promoting sustainable and inclusive oceans management in Pacific Islands through women and science. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150 , 110711 (2020).

Balton, D. A. in Cooperation and Engagement in the Asia-Pacific Region (eds Nordquist, M. H. et al.) 9–17 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2019).

McConney, P., Fanning, L., Mahon, R. & Simmons, B. A first look at the science-policy interface for ocean governance in the wider Caribbean region. Front. Mar. Sci. 2 , 119 (2016).

Fauville, G., Strang, C., Cannady, M. A. & Chen, Y.-F. Development of the international ocean literacy survey: measuring knowledge across the world. Environ. Educ. Res. 25 , 238–263 (2019).

Bennett, N. J. Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable oceans. Mar. Policy 97 , 139–146 (2018).

Claudet, J. et al. A roadmap for using the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development in support of science, policy, and action. One Earth 2 , 34–42 (2020).

About Us (Global Fishing Watch, accessed 1 November 2019); https://globalfishingwatch.org/about-us/

Cosoli, S., Pattiaratchi, C. & Hetzel, Y. High-frequency radar observations of surface circulation features along the south-western Australian coast. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8 , 97 (2020).

Beard, K. et al. A method for heterogeneous spatio-temporal data integration in support of marine aquaculture site selection. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8 , 96 (2020).

Buck, J. J. H. et al. Ocean data product integration through innovation-the next level of data interoperability. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 32 (2019).

About ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, accessed 6 February 2020); https://www.ices.dk/about-ICES/Pages/default.aspx

About WIOMSA (Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association, accessed 6 February 2020); https://www.wiomsa.org/about-wiomsa/

Van Assche, K., Hornidge, A.-K., Schlüter, A. & Vaidianu, N. Governance and the coastal condition: towards new modes of observation, adaptation and integration. Mar. Policy 112 , S0308597X18303865 (2020).

Kelly, C., Ellis, G. & Flannery, W. Unravelling persistent problems to transformative marine governance. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 213 (2019).

Van Nijen, K. et al. The development of a payment regime for deep sea mining activities in the area through stakeholder participation. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 34 , 571–601 (2019).

Sala, E. et al. The economics of fishing the high seas. Sci. Adv. 4 , eaat2504 (2018).

Maxwell, S. M. et al. Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar. Policy 58 , 42–50 (2015).

Knapp, S. et al. Do drivers of biodiversity change differ in importance across marine and terrestrial systems — or is it just different research communities’ perspectives? Sci. Total Environ. 574 , 191–203 (2017).

Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360 , 1189–1191 (2018).

Pörtner, H.-O. et al. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019).

Cauchi, J. P., Correa-Velez, I. & Bambrick, H. Climate change, food security and health in Kiribati: a narrative review of the literature. Glob. Health Action 12 , 1603683 (2019).

Rilov, G. et al. A fast-moving target: achieving marine conservation goals under shifting climate and policies. Ecol. Appl. 30 , e02009 (2020).

Halpern, B. S. et al. Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci. Rep. 9 , 11609 (2019).

Hodgson, E. E., Halpern, B. S. & Essington, T. E. Moving beyond silos in cumulative effects assessment. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 211 (2019).

Hoel, A. H. & Olsen, E. Integrated ocean management as a strategy to meet rapid climate change: the Norwegian case. Ambio. 41 , 85–95 (2012).

Vij, S. et al. Climate adaptation approaches and key policy characteristics: cases from South Asia. Environ. Sci. Policy 78 , 58–65 (2017).

Phuong, L. T. H., Biesbroek, G. R. & Wals, A. E. J. The interplay between social learning and adaptive capacity in climate change adaptation: a systematic review. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 82 , 1–9 (2017).

van Kerkhoff, L. et al. Towards future-oriented conservation: managing protected areas in an era of climate change. Ambio. 48 , 699–713 (2019).

Popova, E. et al. Ecological connectivity between the areas beyond national jurisdiction and coastal waters: safeguarding interests of coastal communities in developing countries. Mar. Policy 104 , 90–102 (2019).

Domínguez-Tejo, E. et al. Marine spatial planning advancing the ecosystem-based approach to coastal zone management: a review. Mar. Policy 72 , 115–130 (2016).

Arkema, K., Abramson, S. & Dewsbury, B. Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4 , 525–532 (2006).

Tallis, H. et al. The many faces of ecosystem-based management: making the process work today in real places. Mar. Policy 34 , 340–348 (2010).

McLeod, K. & Leslie, H. (eds) Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans (Island Press, 2009).

Katona, S. et al. Navigating the Seascape of Ocean Management: Waypoints on the Voyage Toward Sustainable Use (OpenChannels: Forum for Ocean Planning and Management, 2017); https://www.openchannels.org/literature/16817

Halpern, B. S. et al. Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP). Mar. Policy 36 , 198–205 (2012).

An Introduction to The MPA Guide (Oregon State University, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Marine Conservation Institute, National Geographic Society & UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2019); https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/mpa-guide

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is adapted from a Blue Paper commissioned by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (HLP) entitled ‘Integrated Ocean Management’. We thank the HLP and the secretariat at World Resources Institute for coordination and supporting our work. We also thank R. Bergstad at Tank Design Tromsø for his help developing Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 , A. Skoglund at the Norwegian Polar Institute for his help developing Fig. 2 , the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association for their permission to use Fig. 3 , and S. DeLucia for copyediting the manuscript.

Author information

Leanne Fernandes

Present address: College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

Centre for the Ocean and the Arctic, Tromsø, Norway

Jan-Gunnar Winther & Therese Rist

Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway

Jan-Gunnar Winther

State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, College of Ocean and Earth Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

College of Fisheries Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

Alf Håkon Hoel

Institute of Marine Research, Tromsø, Norway

Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Coastal and Wetland Ecosystems, College of the Environment and Ecology, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

Ocean Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA

The European Centre for Environment & Human Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Karyn Morrissey

The Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines

Marie Antonette Juinio-Meñez

International Union for Conservation of Nature, Suva, Fiji

Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, Germany

Sebastian Unger

Ecology Department, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Fabio Rubio Scarano

Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

  • Patrick Halpin

Ocean Conservancy Consultant, Washington, DC, USA

Sandra Whitehouse

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.-G.W., M.D., T.R., A.H.H., Y.L., A.T., K.M., M.A.J.-M., L.F., S.U., F.R.S., P.H. and S.W. designed the study and carried out analyses. J.-G.W., M.D., T.R. and A.H.H. wrote the paper. J.-G.W., M.D., T.R., A.H.H., Y.L., A.T., K.M., M.A.J.-M., L.F., S.U., F.R.S., P.H. and S.W. provided comments on the text and figures that helped to develop the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Gunnar Winther .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Winther, JG., Dai, M., Rist, T. et al. Integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy. Nat Ecol Evol 4 , 1451–1458 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1259-6

Download citation

Received : 06 December 2019

Accepted : 26 June 2020

Published : 17 August 2020

Issue Date : November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1259-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Satellite mapping reveals extensive industrial activity at sea.

  • Fernando S. Paolo
  • David Kroodsma

Nature (2024)

Anticipating trade-offs and promoting synergies between small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to improve social, economic, and ecological outcomes

  • Elizabeth J. Mansfield
  • Fiorenza Micheli
  • Rosamond Naylor

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024)

  • Amanda T. Lombard
  • Jai Clifford-Holmes
  • Elisa Morgera

Nature Sustainability (2023)

Thirteen steps to transformation

  • David O. Obura

Particle-associated denitrification is the primary source of N2O in oxic coastal waters

  • Xianhui S. Wan
  • Hua-Xia Sheng
  • Shuh-Ji Kao

Nature Communications (2023)

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

coastal management case study

  • Age: 14-16 MYP Individuals and Societies
  • Age: 14-16 GCSE / IGCSE Geography
  • Natural Environments
  • Economic Development
  • IGCSE Geography Revision Question Bank
  • 2.1 Earthquakes and volcanoes
  • 2.4 Weather
  • 2.5 Climate and natural vegetation
  • Marine processes
  • Coastal landforms
  • Coral reefs
  • Hard and soft coastal engineering

Coastal management case study - Scarborough, UK

  • Weathering and erosion
  • Factors affecting weathering

Watch this video clip that shows wave activity in Sandsend, a small coastal town on the Yorkshire coast (UK) not far from Scarborough. Brainstorm the problems that these sorts of events cause and any solutions you can think of.

Where are the coastal defences?

Scarborough is a town on the North Sea coast of North Yorkshire, England with a population of around 50,000. Scarborough is the largest holiday resort on the Yorkshire coast.

The most striking feature of the town's geography is a headland pointing eastward into the North Sea, which separates the seafront into a North Bay and a South Bay.

In 1896 the Council decided to link the two bays by the construction of a 1200-metre link road to be known as Marine Drive. At the time, there was much support for the project, not only for the commercial advantages but also due to the pressing need to prevent coastal erosion.

  • Describe the location of Scarborough, UK.
  • Describe the location of the coastal defences within Scarborough.

When were the coastal defences built?

The 22 month coastal protection project began in April 2002. It arose from a Coastal Defence Strategy undertaken by Scarborough Borough Council in 1998, which identified a prioritised action plan for the whole of the town’s coastal frontage.

  • When was the coastal defence project finished?

Why were the coastal defences built?

The limited residual life of the existing coastal defence structures which were built in the 19th to early 20th century. There was severe erosion at the toe of the wall which threatened to undermine the seawall and the road. There was regular and costly damage to the infrastructure of Marine Drive, with the concrete in the seawall deteriorating and extensive rehabilitation required.

Severe wave overtopping from the near vertical sea walls causes regular closure of Marine Drive, usually more than 35 times a year. This has a economic impact for local businesses.

Renewed cliff foot erosion would increase the risk from landslides on the headland. Landslides from the Scarborough Castle Headland have been common through history and indeed over a period of 700 years the site of Scarborough Castle had dwindled from 60 acres to 16 acres due to erosion.

Threat to public safety and assets. The resulting threat to public safety and protected assets (estimated at approximately £100m) was considerable.

  • Give four reasons why coastal defences needed to be built along the Castle Headland.

What coastal defences were built?

Marine Drive - Sea Wall, Rip-Rap and Accropodes

  • £25.7 million coastal protection project.
  • 11,000 metres square of concrete ‘boardwalk’ style paving has been provided to form a new promenade around Marine Drive.
  • A 1 metre high concrete wave return wall has been cast along the frontage.
  • Scarborough Council determined that the provision of an Accropode revetment with a 1m high wave return wall would allow for overtopping to be reduced significantly, thus significantly reducing the risk of damage to Marine Drive and greatly enhancing the safety of its users.

Scarborough Accropodes

  • Accropodes – interlocking concrete rock armour units.
  • Up to 4,000 are being were to protect the East Pier and Castle Headland. They were pre-cast in Sunderland, then brought to Scarborough in barge loads of 40 at a time.
  • Each Accropode weighs about 15 tonnes.
  • These interlocking units are lighter than rip-rap and therefore can be used at a steeper gradient. Accropodes also have a greater percentage of voids and for given wave conditions overtopping is less.
  • They have a stronger visual impact than rock armour but this is significantly offset by the smaller profile of an Accropode armoured bund.
  • Lower cost than rip-rap.
  • Greater stability and lower maintenance.
  • Design life of at least 50 years.

North Bay Rock Armour - ready to be put in position

  • 280,000 tonnes of granite from Larvik, Norway to act as rock armour (rip-rap).
  • Describe a ’concrete wave return wall’ and how it works as a coastal defence.
  • What is an Accropode?
  • Why are Accropodes considered to be ‘better’ than normal rip-rap?
  • If Accropodes are so good why was rip-rap still used as part of the Scarborough coastal defence scheme?
  • Why did the rip-rap come from Norway?
  • Who built the coast defences and who paid for them?

Coast Protection Scheme Information Board

  • The owner of a hotel on South Bay.
  • A member of Scarborough Council.
  • A café owner on North Bay.
  • A Scarborough resident that lives in the west of the town and works in a local factory.
  • A local fisherman.
  • The local police officer.

Using the resources above produce an outline of an answer to the following exam style question:

What strategies can be put in place to control the impact of wave erosion upon human activity. You should give examples from an area you have studied. [8 Marks]

Hodder Education Magazines logo

  • Geography Review
  • Westward Ho!: a case study of coastal management

coastal management case study

Energy issues in Africa

Westward ho, a case study of coastal management.

This article looks at the coastal management strategies in place at Westward Ho! and puts them in the context of current policy on coastal protection. It also explains the sort of fieldwork you might carry out to investigate coastal management

  • Volume 27, 2013/ 2014
  • Coastal landscapes

coastal management case study

Westward Ho! is a small town on the Devon coast near Bideford (Figure 1). It lies on a stretch of coast that faces west, into the Atlantic. The settlement:

■ is at the south end of the Northam Burrows Country Park (a Site of Special Scientific Interest or SSSI)

Your organisation does not have access to this article.

Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise

Related articles:

coastal management case study

Revisiting globalisation

coastal management case study

Centrepiece: The hottest month ever recorded

coastal management case study

Concept checklist: Colonialism

Sociology Review

coastal management case study

Bradford, 2025 UK City of Culture

  • Find Flashcards
  • Why It Works
  • Tutors & resellers
  • Content partnerships
  • Teachers & professors
  • Employee training

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome TM

Entrance exams, professional certifications.

  • Foreign Languages
  • Medical & Nursing

Humanities & Social Studies

Mathematics, health & fitness, business & finance, technology & engineering, food & beverage, random knowledge, see full index, coastal management case study - barton on sea flashcards preview, gcse geography - physical > coastal management case study - barton on sea > flashcards.

Where is Barton on Sea?

Hampshire, South West England

What is the main problem at Barton on Sea?

Coastal erosion

What defences are currently in place?

Rock groynes

What are the social issues with the management strategies?

  • Defence don’t always look natural, can be obtrusive
  • Building work/carrying out the process can intrude on a community
  • Soft engineering strategies need replenishing often,causing disruption

What are the economic issues with the management strategies?

  • Hard engineering strategies ca be very expensive to install
  • They can also be expensive to maintain

What are the environmental issues with the management strategies?

  • Hard engineering strategies aren’t made of natural resources, and can interfere
  • Natural coastal processes are interfered with when both hard and soft engineering strategies are used

What are the social benefits of the rock groynes?

  • People’s houses (such as those on Barton Court) are better protected once the defences are in
  • People are able to use the beach for recreational purposes
  • The beach and cliffs are still in a stable condition

What are the economic benefits of the rock groynes?

  • Soft engineering strategies are reasonably inexpensive

- Maintaining the beaches will keep tourists coming

What are the environmental benefits of the rock groynes?

  • Groynes prevent beach starvation, and so allow them to build up over time
  • Rock armour absorbs the force of the wave, rather than reflect it back out to sea

What soft engineering strategies are used?

Cliff drainage and beach nourishment

What is the rate of cliff erosion at Barton?

How far is Barton Court form the cliff edge?

Decks in GCSE Geography - Physical Class (16):

  • The Restless Earth
  • Fold Mountains Case Study The Alps
  • Volcanic Eruption Case Study Montserrat
  • Ledc Earthquake Case Study Nepal 2015
  • Medc Earthquake Case Study Christchurch 2011
  • Tsunami Case Study Boxing Day 2004
  • Water On The Land
  • Ledc Flooding Case Study South Asia 2007
  • Medc Flooding Case Study Carlisle 2005
  • Hard Engineering Case Study Three Gorges Dam
  • Reservoir Case Study Rutland Water
  • The Coastal Zone
  • Ledc Sea Level Rise Case Study The Maldives
  • Coastal Erosion Case Study Holderness
  • Coastal Management Case Study Barton On Sea
  • Coastal Habitat Case Study Keyhaven Marshes
  • Corporate Training
  • Teachers & Schools
  • Android App
  • Help Center
  • Law Education
  • All Subjects A-Z
  • All Certified Classes
  • Earn Money!
  • 0 Shopping Cart

Internet Geography

Medmerry Case Study

Coastal Realignment

Medmerry Coastal Realignment

Medmerry Case Study Coastal Realignment

Medmerry, West Sussex, on the south coast of England, is Europe’s largest coastal realignment scheme.

Medmerry Coastal Realignment

Medmerry Coastal Realignment

Why was the Medmerry coastal realignment scheme needed?

Medmerry had long faced problems with flooding from the sea, with regular breaches of the shingle bank, most recently in 2008, when over £5m of damage was caused. Several hundred thousand pounds were spent repairing and maintaining the shingle bank every year. Without annual maintenance, 348 properties in Selsey, a water treatment plant and the main road between Chichester and Selsey would be flooded, along with many holiday homes and rental cottages. The last time the sea breached the shingle bank in 2008, it caused damage totalling £5 million.

What is the Medmerry coastal realignment scheme?

Medmerry is the largest managed realignment of the open coast in Europe, and the first in the UK, on the stretch of the southeast coast most threatened by coastal flooding. The scheme has created an intertidal habitat, replacing vital areas lost in the Solent, allowing new defences to be built and protecting thousands more properties along the coastline.

The scheme is recognised locally, nationally and internationally as an exemplar scheme and is one of the most sustainable projects the Environment Agency has delivered.

Aerial view of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme

Aerial view of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme – Image: Environment Agency

Work began on the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme in 2011 following a public consultation. It was completed in 2014. The project was achieved by:

  • Constructing a new 7km embankment using clay from within the area. The embankment created a new intertidal zone , protecting properties behind it from coastal flooding.
  • A channel was built behind the embankment to collect draining water. This water is taken back into the intertidal zone via four outfall structures.
  • Sixty thousand tonnes of rock from Norway was used to build up rock armour on the seaward edges of the embankment, linking to the remaining ridge.
  • Once the rock amour and embankment were complete, a 110-metre breach was made in the shingle bank on the beach , allowing the sea to flood the land and creating the new intertidal zone.

What are the positive effects of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

What are the social benefits of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

  • Selsey now has the best protection from coastal flooding, with only a 1 in 1000 chance of coastal flooding. 348 properties and sewage works are now protected to a standard of 1 in 100 years (previously just 1 in 1 year). The scheme avoided a possible breach during severe winter storms in 2013.
  • The area now has ten kilometres of footpaths, seven kilometres of bike paths, and five kilometres of bridleways compared to the previous two small footpaths before the scheme was developed.

What are the economic benefits of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

  • Caravan parks and Selsey’s main road route are now protected to a standard of 1 in 100 years (previously just 1 in 1 year).
  • The local economy has received a boost from an increase in green tourism , and the caravan parks have been able to extend their season, generating income and jobs. Two new car parks and four viewing points give easy access.
  • Vegetation on the salt marsh supports extensive cattle farming, producing expensive salt-marsh beef.

What are the environmental benefits of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

  • The site contains 300 hectares of habitat of principal importance under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, including mudflats, reed beds, saline lagoons and grassland. This includes 183 hectares of newly created intertidal habitat important to wildlife on an international level. It is crucial in compensating for losses due to development around The Solent, allowing the region to meet its European directive targets. Birds and other new wildlife appeared at the site long before completion.
  • The area is now a huge nature reserve managed by the RSPB.

What issues and conflicts resulted from the Medmerry coastal realignment scheme?

What are the social issues of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

  • Some residents feel that the Environmental Agency should have explored other options, such as an offshore reef or continued beach realignment, and not have given up on the land so easily.
  • Some opponents from outside the area resented a significant sum of money being spent on a scheme in such a sparsely populated area.

What are the economic issues of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

  • The project was expensive at £28 million compared to £0.2 million a year to maintain the shingle wall. Though with rising sea levels, this can be challenged quite easily.
  • Good agricultural land was abandoned, leading to the loss of three farms growing winter wheat and oilseed rape.

What are the environmental issues of the Medmerry Coastal Realignment Scheme?

  • Despite extensive planning , the habitats of existing species were disturbed.

Internet Geography Plus

Premium Resources

Please support internet geography.

If you've found the resources on this page useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated.

Related Topics

Use the images below to explore related GeoTopics.

Topic Home

Next topic page, share this:.

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated.

Search Internet Geography

Top posts and pages.

Home

Latest Blog Entries

How do I revise GCSE Geography?

Pin It on Pinterest

  • Click to share
  • Print Friendly

Book cover

Making Green Cities pp 401–422 Cite as

Urban Greening as a Response to Societal Challenges. Toward Biophilic Megacities (Case Studies of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, Russia)

  • Diana Dushkova 8 ,
  • Maria Ignatieva 9 &
  • Irina Melnichuk 10  
  • First Online: 17 March 2023

617 Accesses

Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)

The population density in megacities is continuously increasing, resulting in a reduction of green spaces and a deterioration in the urban environment quality. Urban green is often being replaced by parking places, shopping centers, and service enterprises. This chapter examines the efforts of two megacities in Russia—Moscow and Saint Petersburg—to organize sustainable greening solutions for their residential areas using new achievements in landscape design theory and practice, such as the concept of the biophilic city. The chapter analyzes the history of greening strategies and discusses the concept of urban green infrastructure and its implementation in both Russian megacities. The chapter presents an assessment of the current state of urban green spaces and the most recent master plans and how these cities are facing and responding to modern societal challenges. The results of an analytical review of the most successful urban greening projects in Moscow and Saint Petersburg are presented as well. The economic and climatic features of the urban green areas and their architectural and planning features are considered, along with strategies for further development of the urban green spaces in both cities, aiming to address the new principles of biophilic cities.

  • Urban green spaces
  • Greening strategies
  • Biophilic cities
  • Societal challenges
  • Saint Petersburg

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Aleksandrova S (2013) Sustainability principles for St. Petersburg landscape with Scandinavian experience in mind: application of Swedish green space research result of “the eight characteristics”. Master’s thesis, 30 hec, Advanced level, A2E Landscape Architecture—master’s programme, Alnarp

Google Scholar  

Archive Buro of Moscow (2018) Holiday of liberated labor: the first subbotniks in the capital. https://www.mos.ru/news/item/9998073/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Archive Committee of Saint Petersburg (2019) Archive Committee of Saint Petersburg. https://spbarchives.ru/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Beatley T (2010) Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Island Press, Washington, DC

BioDAT (2005) Moscow—the Lotten capital of the XXI century. http://biodat.ru/db/birds/sol2005.htm . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Breuste JH, Qureshi S, Xue F (2015) Urban ecosystems: functions, services and sustainable management. Ecocity Green Build 42–52

Bunin AV (1953) Istoriya gradostroitelnogo iskusstva (History of urban planning). Gosudarstvennoje Izdatel’stvo Literatury po stroitel’stvu i Arhitekture. Moscow (in Russian)

Bunin AV, Ilyin LA, Polyakov NH, Shkarikov VA (1945) Gradostroitel’stvo (Urban planning). Izda-tel’stvo Akademii Arhitektury SSSR, Mosow (in Russian)

DEMP – Department for Environmental Management and Protection (2018) Norms and rules for the design of objects of non-traditional types of gardening in the city of Moscow (un-published). Available at: http://www.dpioos.ru/eco/ru/activity/n_160/o_13279 . Accessed 20 Oct 2018

Dushkova D, Krasovskaya T (2018) Post-Soviet single-industry cities in northern Russia: movement towards sustainable development. A case study of Kirovsk. Belgeo (on-line). Revue Belge De Géographie 4:1–25. https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.27427

Article   Google Scholar  

Dushkova D, Haase D, Haase A (2016) Urban green space in transition: historical parks and Soviet heritage in Arkhangelsk, Russia. Crit Housing Anal 3(2):61–70. https://doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2016.3.2.300

Federal Russian Government (1995) Federal Law of Russia No. 33 “On specially protected natural territories” from 14.03.1995. www.oopt.info . Accessed 21 Dec 2018 (in Russian)

Genplan Moskvy (Masterplan Moscow) (1935) O generalnom plane rekonstrukcii Moskvy (About the general plan for the reconstruction of Moscow). Partizdat, Moscow (in Russian)

Goretskaya A (2017) Toporina V (2017) The ecological framework of the city. Three pillars of landscape architecture: design, planning and management. New visions. In: Ignatieva M, Melnichuk I (eds) Conference proceedings. Saint-Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Polytechnic University Publishing House, Saint-Petersburg, pp 23–24

Haase D (2017) Urban ecosystem, their services and town planning. Crit Reflecti Sel Shortcomings. URBANISTICA 159:90–94

Haase D, Dushkova D, Haase A, Kronenberg J (in press) Green infrastructure in post-socialist cities: evidence and experiences from Russia, Poland and Eastern Germany. In: Tuvikene T, Sgibnev W, Neugebauer CS (eds) Post-socialist urban infrastructures. Taylor & Francis/Routledge, UK

Ignatieva M (1997) The mystery of ancient Russian gardens. Lustgarden. J Swedish Soc Dendrol Park Cult 69–78

Ignatieva M (2010) Design and future of urban biodiversity. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey J (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 118–144

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ignatieva M (2013) Historic gardens—where nature meets culture—can be urban biodiversity hotspots. The nature of cities. https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2013/01/27/historic-gardens-where-nature-meets-culture-can-be-urban-biodiversity-hotspots/ . Accessed 22 Oct 2018

Ignatieva M, Ahrné K (2013) Biodiverse green infrastructure for the 21st century: from “green desert” of lawns to biophilic cities. J Archit Urban 37(1):1–9

Ignatieva M, Konechnaya G, Stewart G (2011a) St. Petersburg. In: Kelcey J, Müller N (eds) Plants Habitats Eur Cities. Springer Science & Business Media, pp 407–452

Ignatieva M, Stewart GH, Meurk C (2011b) Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape Ecol Eng 7:17–25

Ignatieva M, Murray R, Waldenström H (2015) Can large parks be urban green saviors? The nature of cities. https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2015/12/03/can-large-parks-be-urban-green-saviors/ . Accessed 28 Oct 2018

Ignatieva M, Golosova E, Melnichuk I, Smertin V (2018) Development of biophilic cities in Russia: from ideal scientific town and Ecopolis to the green strategy of the modern mega-polis. In: IFLA World Congress Singapore proceedings, Singapore, 2018. http://www.ifla2018.com/eproceedings

Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A (2017) Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5

Kartinki24.ru (2019) Vasily Polenov. Moscow courtyard. http://www.kartinki24.ru/kartinki/art/16906-vasiliy-polenov-moskovskiy-dvorik.html . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Khodakov Y (1986) Gorodskoje Ozelenenije (The urban greenery). Lenisdat, Leningrad (in Russian)

Klimanova OA, Kolbovsky EY (2013) Protected areas in the system of territorial planning and functional zoning of the Moscow city. Regional Geoecol Issues 177–180 (in Russian)

Kochurov BI, Ivashkina IV (2015) Urban Landscapes of Moscow and their spatial transformation. Ecol Urban Areas 2:48–54

Korzhev MP (ed) (1954) Ozelenenije sovetskih gorodov: Posobie po Projektirovaniju (Greening of Soviet cities: Green projects Manual). Gosudarstvennoje Isdatelstvo literaturi po stroitelstvu i architecture, Moscow (in Russian)

Melnichuk I (2017) St. Petersburg green infrastructure and methods of its formation. In: Igna-tieva M, Melnichuk I (eds) Three pillars of landscape architecture: design, planning and management. New visions. Conference proceedings, Saint-Petersburg State Polytechnic University, 2017. Polytechnic University Publishing House, Saint-Petersburg, pp 105–112

Minin AA (2014) Sustainable development and ecosystem services of natural areas of Moscow. Bulletin Towards Sustain Devel Russia 69:2–9

Moscow city council (1999, with modifications of 2014) Moscow law on the protection of green areas. http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901734936 . Accessed 21 Dec 2018 (in Russian)

Mosecomonitoring (2017) The state reports of department of environmental management and environmental protection of Moscow for 2016. Mosecomonitoring, Moscow. http://mosecom.ru/reports/2014/report2014.pdf . Accessed 28 Oct 2018 (in Russian)

Mosgorstat Moscow (2018) Moscow city committee of statistics by Russian Federal State statistics service. About demographic, economic and social situation in Moscow in 2018. http://moscow.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_ts/moscow/ru/statistics/population/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2018 (in Russian)

Müller N, Werner P (2010) Urban biodiversity and the case for implementing the convention on biological diversity in towns and cities. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Blackwell Publishing, pp 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318654.ch1

Nilsson K, Åkerlund U, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C, Alekseev A, Caspersen O, Guldager S, Kuznetsov E, Mezenko A, Selikhovkin A (2007) Implementing urban greening aid projects—the case of St. Petersburg Russia. Urban for Urban Green 6:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.01.004

Pauleit S, Olafsson AS, Rall E, van der Jagt A, Ambrose-Oji B, Andersson E, Anton B, Buijs A, Haase D, Elands B, Hansen R, Kowarik I, Kronenberg J, Mattijssen T (2018) Urban green infrastructure in Europe—status quo, innovation and perspectives. Urban for urban green. Rosstat 2017. Federal State statistics service. Russia 2016—Statistical pocketbook, Moscow

Petrostat (2018) Department of Federal State Statistics Service of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region. About demographic, economic and social situation in Saint Petersburg in 2018. http://petrostat.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_ts/petrostat/ru/statistics/Sant_Petersburg/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2018 (in Russian)

Research and Project Institute of Moscow City Master plan (2018) Research and Project Institute of Moscow City Master plan. https://genplanmos.ru . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Seto K, Reenberg A (eds) (2014) Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Struengmann forum reports, vol 14. Julia Lupp, series editor, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Shumilova OV (2016) Methods of St. Petersburg Green Infrastructure formation. St. Petersburg State Forest Techical University, St. Petersburg (in Russian)

St. Petersburg city council (2004, with modifications of 2010) St. Petersburg law on the protection of green areas. http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ . Accessed 05 Jan 2019 (in Russian)

State Research and design center of Saint Petersburg Masterplan (2018) State Research and design center of Saint Petersburg Masterplan. http://www.gugenplan.spb.ru . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Totalarch (2019) Regular gardens of Peter's time. Regular style evolution and later baroque mid-18th century. http://landscape.totalarch.com/russian_gardens/baroque . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Vasenev I, Dovletyarova E, Chen Z, Valentini R (2017) Megacities 2050: Environmental con-sequences of urbanization. In: Proceedings of the VI international conference on landscape architecture to support city sustainable development. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70557-6

Weiner DR (2002) A little corner of freedom: Russian nature protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. University of California Press

WHO—World Health Organisation (2017) Urban green space interventions and health: a review of impacts and effectiveness. Full report. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/337690/FULL-REPORT-for-LLP.pdf?ua=1 . Accessed 20 Dec 2018

Yanitsky O, Usacheva O (2017) History of the “Green City” in Russia. J Culture Art Res 6(6):125–131. https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i6.1330

Zemvopros.ru (2019) The master plan of St. Petersburg 2015–2025. Functional area map. https://www.zemvopros.ru/genplan.php . Accessed 10 Jan 2019

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) project “Mathematical-cartographic assessment of medico-ecological situation in cities of European Russia for their integrated ecological characteristics” (2018–2020) under Grant number No 18-05-406 00236/18 and by the Horizon 2020 Framework Program of the European Union project “Connecting Nature” under Grant Agreement No 730222.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany

Diana Dushkova

School of Design, University of Western Australia, Stirling Highway 35, Perth, 6001, Australia

Maria Ignatieva

Faculty of Landscape Architecture, Saint Petersburg State Forest Technical University, Institutskij pereulok 5, St.-Petersburg, 194021, Russia

Irina Melnichuk

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Dushkova .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Geography and Geology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Jürgen Breuste

Landscape Change and Management, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Dresden, Sachsen, Germany

Martina Artmann

Center for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

Cristian Ioja

Department of Geography (Landscape Ecology), Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Salman Qureshi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Dushkova, D., Ignatieva, M., Melnichuk, I. (2023). Urban Greening as a Response to Societal Challenges. Toward Biophilic Megacities (Case Studies of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, Russia). In: Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Ioja, C., Qureshi, S. (eds) Making Green Cities. Cities and Nature. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73089-5_25

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73089-5_25

Published : 17 March 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-73088-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-73089-5

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. PPT

    coastal management case study

  2. CASE STUDY ON COASTAL MANAGEMENT

    coastal management case study

  3. (PDF) Ocean modelling for coastal management

    coastal management case study

  4. North Norfolk Coastal Management (Case Study)

    coastal management case study

  5. North Norfolk Coastal Management (Case Study)

    coastal management case study

  6. Coastal Management Case Study: Lyme Regis, UK by Geography Teacher

    coastal management case study

VIDEO

  1. GCSE Geography

  2. Coastal Management

  3. Distinctive Landscapes Case study: Coastal Management at Overstrand

  4. Coastal Management Strategies

  5. Coasts: Coastal Management

  6. Coastal management at Lyme Regis (Dorset Coast)

COMMENTS

  1. Lyme Regis Case Study of Coastal Management

    Lyme Regis Case Study of Coastal Management Lyme Regis is a small coastal town on the south coast of England. It lies on the western edge of the Dorset Coast and forms part of the Jurassic Coast, a World Heritage Site famous for its fossils and coastal landforms. The town is a popular tourist destination in the summer.

  2. PDF Coastal Adaptation Stategies: Case Studies

    Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. 2015 . On this Page . The historic Peale Island Cabin in Yellowstone National Park is threatened by shoreline change that may be accelerated by ... Case Study 23: Incorporating Climate Change Response into a General Management Plan, Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland and Virginia ...

  3. Coastal Management

    Journal overview Aims and scope Journal metrics Editorial board Coastal Management is an international peer-reviewed, applied research journal dedicated to exploring the technical, applied ecological, legal, political, social, and policy issues relating to the use of coastal and ocean resources and environments on a global scale.

  4. The Holderness Coast Case Study

    The Holderness Coast is a great case study to use when examining coastal processes and their associated features. This is because the area contains 'textbook' examples of coastal erosion and deposition. The exposed chalk of Flamborough provides examples of erosion and features such as caves, arches and stacks.

  5. Innovations in Coastline Management With Natural and Nature-Based

    This study examines three innovative coastal resilience projects that use NNBF approaches to improve coastal community resilience to flooding while providing a host of other benefits: 1) Living Breakwaters in New York Harbor; 2) the Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study; and 3) the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project in San Francisc...

  6. Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe ...

    Applications for coastal management case study of Abbott's Hall using the fast screening method were done by 4 evaluators with different backgrounds. The experts conducting in-depth analysis had various data available, due to their long involvement into the respective studies, ranging from different literature, online resources, observations ...

  7. PDF Case Study of The Holderness Coast, Yorkshire

    Case Study of The Holderness Coast, Yorkshire Introduction Arange of classic coastal features stretch over 50km, from the chalk cliffs of Flamborough, through the plain of Holderness, to Spurn Head where a large spit guards the entrance to the Humber estuary.

  8. Coastal management

    Coastal management case study: Holderness coastline The Holderness coastline is located on the east coast of England. It is the fastest eroding coastline in Europe. Reasons for management The...

  9. Integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy

    133 Altmetric Metrics Abstract The rapidly evolving ocean economy, driven by human needs for food, energy, transportation and recreation, has led to unprecedented pressures on the ocean that are...

  10. Impacts of lagoon opening and implications for coastal management: case

    Boateng I (2012a) GIS and coastal geomorphology for large scale assessment of coastal erosion and management: a case study of Ghana. J Coast Conserv 16:383-397. Article Google Scholar Boateng I (2012b) An assessment of the physical impacts of sea level rise and coastal adaptation: a case study of the eastern coast of Ghana.

  11. Coastal Management Case Study

    The Holderness Coastline. Hmm... there seems to be an issue. The item can't be loaded

  12. Coastal management case study

    Coastal management case study - Scarborough, UK Starter Watch this video clip that shows wave activity in Sandsend, a small coastal town on the Yorkshire coast (UK) not far from Scarborough. Brainstorm the problems that these sorts of events cause and any solutions you can think of. Big waves batter the seafront at Sandsend, North Yorkshire

  13. Coastal management case study

    Case Study: Sustainable coastal management strategy Newcastle, Co Down The tourist resort of Newcastle, Co Down has long been under attack from the sea and has regularly caused flooding along the...

  14. Westward Ho!: a case study of coastal management

    A case study of coastal management. This article looks at the coastal management strategies in place at Westward Ho! and puts them in the context of current policy on coastal protection. It also explains the sort of fieldwork you might carry out to investigate coastal management. Geography Review. Volume 27, 2013/ 2014. Issue 2. Geography Review.

  15. 3.2.3 Coastal Management

    Revision notes on 3.2.3 Coastal Management for the AQA GCSE Geography syllabus, written by the Geography experts at Save My Exams. ... Case Study - The Holderness Coast. The Holderness Coastline is located on the East Coast of Yorkshire and runs for 61 km Flamborough Head in the north down to Spurn Head where it meets the Humber Estuary in the ...

  16. 2.3.5 Coastal Management

    For the last 5 years Jacque has been teaching online for international schools, and she knows what is needed to pass those pesky geography exams. Revision notes on 2.3.5 Coastal Management for the CIE IGCSE Geography syllabus, written by the Geography experts at Save My Exams.

  17. Data-driven modelling for assessing trophic status in marine ...

    Assessing eutrophication in coastal and transitional waters is of utmost importance, yet existing Trophic Status Index (TSI) models face challenges like multicollinearity, data redundancy, inappropriate aggregation methods, and complex classification schemes. To tackle these issues, we developed a novel tool that harnesses machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), enhancing the ...

  18. Mappleton Case Study

    Mappleton Case Study Located on the Holderness Coast, Mappleton is an example of the positive and negative impacts of coastal management. A Coastal Management Scheme in the UK Flashcards Test Yourself Questions Mappleton Case Study Location of Mappleton Mappleton lies approximately 3km south of Hornsea on the Holderness Coast, East Yorkshire.

  19. Coastal Management Case Study

    What is the rate of cliff erosion at Barton? A. 2m a year. 12. Q. How far is Barton Court form the cliff edge? A. 20m. Study Coastal Management Case Study - Barton on Sea flashcards from Lara Robinson's University of Bath class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. Learn faster with spaced repetition.

  20. Rainstorms impacts on water, sediment, and trace elements ...

    In 2020 and 2021, the city of Moscow, Russia, has experienced two historical rainfall events that had caused major flooding of small rivers. Based on long-term observation datasets from the surrounding weather stations, regional mesoscale COSMO-CLM climate model results, and a detailed hydrological and water quality monitoring data, we performed a pioneer assessment of climate change and ...

  21. Medmerry Case Study Coastal Realignment

    Medmerry Case Study Coastal Realignment - Internet Geography Medmerry Case Study Coastal Realignment Medmerry, West Sussex, on the south coast of England, is Europe's largest coastal realignment scheme. Medmerry Coastal Realignment Why was the Medmerry coastal realignment scheme needed?

  22. Human Dimensions of Urban Blue and Green Infrastructure during a ...

    Significant challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that features of a modern, sustainable and resilient city should not only relate to fulfilling economic and social urban strategies, but also to functional urban design, in particular, related to urban blue and green infrastructure (BGI). Using results from a web-based questionnaire survey conducted May-July 2020 in Moscow (Russia ...

  23. New ITU case study maps the Moscow 'smart city' journey

    A new ITU case study offers an evaluation of Moscow's progress in meeting the objectives of its 'smart city' strategies and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The case study , Implementing ITU-T International Standards to Shape Smart Sustainable Cities: The Case of Moscow, was undertaken using the Key Performance ...

  24. Urban Greening as a Response to Societal Challenges. Toward ...

    2.1 Study Area. Moscow and Saint Petersburg are among the most populous cities in Russia and in Europe and are the fastest growing cities in Russia. Between 1991 and 2018, the population increased from 9.02 to 12.56 million people in Moscow and from 5.00 to 5.35 million in Saint Petersburg (Mosgorstat Moscow 2018; Petrostat 2018).Urban areas have been continuing to expand.