coastal management research topics

Advertisement

A review of coastal management approaches to support the integration of ecological and human community planning for climate change

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2018
• Volume 23 , pages 1–18, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Emily J. Powell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6053-5240 1   nAff2 ,
• Megan C. Tyrrell 1   nAff3 ,
• Andrew Milliken 1   nAff4 ,
• John M. Tirpak 5 &
• Michelle D. Staudinger 6  

20k Accesses

98 Citations

19 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The resilience of socio-ecological systems to sea level rise, storms and flooding can be enhanced when coastal habitats are used as natural infrastructure. Grey infrastructure has long been used for coastal flood protection but can lead to unintended negative impacts. Natural infrastructure often provides similar services as well as added benefits that support short- and long-term biological, cultural, social, and economic goals. While natural infrastructure is becoming more widespread in practice, it often represents a relatively small fraction within portfolios of coastal risk-reducing strategies compared to more traditional grey infrastructure. This study provides a comprehensive review of how natural infrastructure is being used along the United States Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coasts related to four habitats – tidal marshes, beaches and barrier islands, mangroves, and biogenic reefs. We compare information on the benefits, opportunities and challenges of implementing natural, grey and hybrid infrastructure in the coastal zone. In addition, we present a suite of actions to increase information and reduce uncertainty so that coastal mangers and planners are aware of the full suite of options for restoration, conservation and planning that maximize ecosystem services over short- and long-term planning horizons.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bridging the gap between coastal engineering and nature conservation?

Is ecosystem-based coastal defense a realistic alternative exploring the evidence.

Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigate Coastal Floods and Associated Socioecological Impacts

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Human and natural communities located in the coastal zone are increasingly threatened by climate impacts (e.g., sea level rise (SLR), flooding from coastal storms and coastal erosion) and anthropogenic stressors (e.g., pollution, land use change and development) (e.g., Donnelly and Bertness 2001 ; Feagin et al. 2005 ; Erwin et al. 2006 ; Defeo et al. 2009 ; Shepard et al. 2012 ; Fagherazzi et al. 2013 ; Valle-Levinson et al. 2017 ; Dahl et al. 2017 ). In recent years, coastal systems along the United States Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coasts have also experienced a number of extreme events (e.g., Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav, Sandy, Harvey, Irma, Maria) and accidents (e.g., Deepwater Horizon oil spill). The combined effects of these gradual and acute threats requires innovative, holistic and collaborative approaches to reduce risk (e.g., Adger et al. 2005 ; NOAA 2015 ; Wamsler et al. 2016 ). This includes coastal adaptation strategies that consider short- and long-term climate scenarios, uncertainty, cost-benefit analyses of competing actions, as well as the incorporation of nature and natural elements into shoreline management systems (Stein et al. 2013 ; RAE 2015 ).

Inherent to coastal adaptation is the concept of resilience, which is the ability of socio-ecological systems to absorb and recover from disturbances, while retaining or even regaining essential structures, processes or functions (Adger et al. 2005 ; Folke 2006 ; Cutter et al. 2008 ; Fisichelli et al. 2016 ). Managing for resilience can take several forms, including: 1) resisting change through restoration and maintenance of current conditions, 2) accommodating some level of change after a disturbance, but generally returning to a previous state, or 3) facilitating change either through active management towards a desired new state (e.g., reorganization) or passively allowing for autonomous change (Fisichelli et al. 2016 ). Natural infrastructure, including natural habitats and features designed to mimic natural processes, can serve as an alternative management approach to traditional grey infrastructure for risk reduction and may provide added benefits to socio-ecological systems (e.g., Arkema et al. 2013 ; Reguero et al. 2018 ). These benefits can be characterized as supporting, regulating, culturally sustaining, and provisioning ecosystem services and include enhanced erosion control, recreation and habitat preservation, among others (MEA 2005 ; Gedan et al. 2010 ; NOAA 2010 ; Scyphers et al. 2011 ; Grabowski et al. 2012 ; Bridges et al. 2015 ). While natural infrastructure is becoming more widespread in practice, it often represents a relatively small fraction of a community’s portfolio of coastal risk-reducing strategies when compared to more traditional grey infrastructure (Temmerman et al. 2013 ; Sutton-Grier et al. 2015 ; Small-Lorenz et al. 2016 ; Wamsler et al. 2016 ; Bilkovic et al. 2016 ).

The goal of this study is to increase awareness of how natural infrastructure is being used in the coastal zone to enhance socio-ecological resilience to natural and anthropogenic stressors. We assessed the benefits, opportunities and best practices of using four costal habitats, 1) tidal marshes, 2) beaches and barrier islands, 3) biogenic reefs, and 4) mangroves, as natural infrastructure across the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coasts. In addition, we provide an overview of remaining challenges and information needs that impede systematic consideration of natural infrastructure in coastal planning and management.

The impacts and potential responses of coastal habitats to sea level rise, storms and other stressors

Tidal marshes, beaches and barrier islands, biogenic reefs, and mangroves provide critical nesting, foraging and resting habitat for many fish and wildlife species of high conservation concern, as well as essential nursery and refuge habitat for commercially and recreationally important fishes and invertebrates (NRC 2007 ; Gedan et al. 2010 ). These four habitats also benefit coastal communities by providing risk reduction through the attenuation or dissipation of wave energy, breaking of offshore waves, slowing of inland water transfer (NRC 2007 ; Costanza et al. 2008 ; Gedan et al. 2010 ), and sediment stabilization (NRC 2007 ; Gedan et al. 2010 ; Scyphers et al. 2011 ; Gittman et al. 2014 ; La Peyre et al. 2015 ). The resilience of these four habitats to rising sea levels, coastal flooding, extreme storm events, and other stressors over the near and long-term depends largely on the exposure to a threat (e.g., rate of local SLR) and sensitivity to a threat based on the surrounding local conditions (e.g., availability of suitable adjacent habitat) to support dynamic response to stressors.

The interactive effects of multiple stressors, such as extreme events and SLR, may push some coastal ecosystems to undergo sudden, rapid and irreversible shifts that result in abrupt or nonlinear changes in an ecosystem quality, property or phenomenon, known as a threshold (CCSP 2009 ). Quantitative thresholds are important indicators of habitat changes or landscape responses to stressors like SLR and storm surge that could lead to a reduction in a valued resource and related ecosystem services (Powell et al. 2017 ). A synthesis of existing information on quantitative thresholds and observed or modeled responses to SLR for tidal marshes, beaches and barrier islands, biogenic reefs, and mangroves along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean coasts found preliminary information on salt marshes across the geography (Table 1 ). However, threshold data were scarce for biogenic reefs, mangroves, and beach and barrier island systems, specifically along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Overall, ≥ 50 cm of SLR by 2100 is expected to result in widespread coastal habitat losses along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean coasts, although losses may vary substantially based on local factors, such as nearshore bathymetry, exposure to severe storms, wave action, and rates of surface elevation change (Fagherazzi et al. 2013 ; Raposa et al. 2016 ; Ganju et al. 2017 ). Some wetlands were predicted to persist in the near term under moderate rates of global SLR (e.g., ~100 cm by 2100) through feedback mechanisms, such as submergence-accretion (wetland inundation with sediment-laden water) and increased plant productivity with submergence (Gedan et al. 2010 ).

Moderate to high rates of projected SLR (roughly 50–80 cm by 2100) have the potential to substantially impact coastal habitats and degrade, reduce or remove associated ecosystem services (Field 1995 ; Erwin et al. 2006 ; Bin et al. 2007 ; Craft et al. 2009 ; Melillo et al. 2014 ). For instance, a 50 cm rise in sea levels by 2100 along the Georgia coast is predicted to convert salt marsh areas to tidal flats and open water, with a concomitant reduction in their productivity and nitrogen sequestration abilities (Craft et al. 2009 ). Several modeling studies suggest marshes can accrete enough sediment or respond dynamically and keep pace with low to moderate rates of SLR (Lentz et al. 2016 ; Kirwan et al. 2016 ). However, empirical studies have shown that, in many places, marsh (Craft et al. 2009 ; Raposa et al. 2015 ; Armitage et al. 2015 ; Watson et al. 2015 ) and mangrove accretion (Gilman et al. 2008 ) are not actually keeping pace with current rates of SLR. In South Carolina, a parabolic relationship was demonstrated between inundation and primary production of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora ), suggesting that near-term stability of intertidal salt marsh in response to local SLR depended on marsh elevation (Morris et al. 2002 ). For oyster reefs, vertical growth on unharvested oyster reefs is generally greater than predicted rates of SLR (Grabowski et al. 2012 ); however, intertidal oyster reef survival requires inland migration or juvenile recruitment to raise reef elevation and maximize recruitment, growth and survival relative to SLR (Solomon et al. 2014 ).

The wide range of studies that have assessed SLR impacts to Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean coastal habitats (Table 1 ) provide a starting point for understanding where and when thresholds may be crossed. These data combined with model outputs that identify where dynamic response (Lentz et al. 2016 ) or inland migration (Enwright et al. 2015 ) is most likely can be used to support effective adaptation and resilience actions, such as conserving or restoring viable inland habitats. However, habitat responses are complicated and decisions of which habitat to actively maintain or manage towards transition may not always be straight-forward due to complicated ecosystem interactions. For example, along the Texas coast, marsh areas are decreasing in size in response to local rates of SLR, while mangrove forests are expanding in response to rising winter temperature minima and leading to displacement of salt marshes in some areas (Armitage et al. 2015 ). While expansion may help to increase the overall extent of mangrove habitat, low island mangroves, which are functionally linked to adjacent coral reefs and experiencing simultaneous decreases in productivity, may suffer from lower sedimentation rates and increased susceptibility to SLR and storms (Gilman et al. 2008 ). Impediments posed by natural or human features of the surrounding landscape are additional challenges to decision-making. For example, under moderate to high scenarios of SLR, several studies (Table 1 ) show that habitats can persist by migrating upslope, unless hard coastline features (e.g., bedrock coast), development (e.g., Feagin et al. 2005 ) or steep slopes block or inhibit habitat movement inland (Lentz et al. 2016 ). Restricted movement of beaches within narrow zones also has the potential to alter habitat characteristics and interfere with ecological functions that provide protective services to the coast from wave energy, tides and winds (Griggs 2005 ; NRC 2007 ; Titus et al. 2009 ). Consequently, migration corridor planning is especially important in urbanized and high-elevation coastal areas to increase ecosystem connectivity and improve wetland migration (Enwright et al. 2015 ).

Summary of ecological and human community benefits of management approaches using natural infrastructure

Natural infrastructure is being successfully implemented as part of a suite of coastal adaptation actions along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coasts to enhance the resilience of socio-ecological communities to the impacts of SLR and storms (Table 2 ). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) previously synthesized data on the benefits derived from certain coastal habitats, as well as structural and non-structural coastal risk reduction strategies (USACE 2013 ). We used the USACE ( 2013 ) report as a baseline of information and expanded on its findings through an updated review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Our review aimed to provide a more comprehensive treatment of the range of management approaches that incorporate natural infrastructure and derived socio-ecological benefits (i.e., ecosystem services) related to tidal marshes, beaches and barrier islands, biogenic reefs, and mangroves. The socio-ecological benefits offered by these four habitats are organized into six management categories, including 1) restoration, 2) landscape conservation design, 3) living shorelines, 4) facilitated re-location, 5) open space preservation, and 6) land use planning (Table 2 ).

The management options described in Table 2 provide a range of ecosystem services that enhance resilience of coastal systems to gradual (e.g., climate change) and episodic (e.g., major storms) threats. For example, landscape conservation design, through assessment, acquisition and management, enhances connectivity while also providing natural corridors for species’ migration, persistence and resilience (Bartuszevige et al. 2016 ). When used in conjunction with information on climate change and climate refugia (Morelli et al. 2016 ), as well as with projections of development and population growth, these frameworks can facilitate the identification and prioritization of habitat for conservation and connectivity that best support species under current and future conditions of risk. For instance, establishing a network of protected mangrove areas representing a range of different community types and maturity stages can support mangrove persistence in the face of SLR and other threats (Gilman et al. 2008 ).

Increasing coastal connectivity can also enhance storm protection services (Table 2 ). According to Barbier et al. ( 2008a ), the relationship between wave attenuation and change in habitat area is nonlinear for salt marshes and mangroves, such that increasing habitat areas inland from the shoreline results in quadratic and exponential reductions in wave heights. Simulations using four hypothetical hurricanes at 12 locations along a shoreline transect (approximately 6 km in length) in the Caernarvon Basin in Louisiana, found storm surge levels were reduced by 1 m for every 9.4 to 12.6 km of additional wetlands along the transect (Barbier et al. 2013 ). Mangroves in Florida were also found to reduce peak surge levels by 0.4–0.5 m per km of mangrove forest width (Zhang et al. 2012 ). Beach, dune and barrier island restoration (e.g., dune building, beach nourishment), and limiting development to enable dynamic responses (e.g., breaches) to SLR and storms may be other important actions to increase protective services in some places (e.g., Defeo et al. 2009 ). The level of storm protection provided by beaches largely depends on the slope of the nearshore submerged environment, wave magnitude and sediment supply (NRC 2007 ; USACE 2013 ). Dunes also block waves and prevent inland inundation, depending on several similar factors (Barbier et al. 2008a ; Temmerman et al. 2013 ). An exponential relationship was found between the percent cover of dune grasses and size of oceanic waves blocked by sand dunes, such that as the vegetation density and dune height increased, higher waves were needed to overtop the dune (Barbier et al. 2008b ). Facilitating the establishment of dune grasses along the backshore of beaches and the use of sand fencing can help trap sands and create and maintain dunes (USEPA 2009 ); however, these beach stabilization approaches may conflict and thus need to be balanced with the need for sparsely vegetated areas on dynamic beaches for piping plover and other shorebird feeding and nesting areas (Lott et al. 2007 ).

Restoration of oyster habitat is a primary strategy to restore lost ecological functions and the broader socio-ecological benefits they provide, including storm protection services through wave attenuation (Table 2 ; Grabowski et al. 2012 ; Ferrario et al. 2014 ). However, oyster reef building and restoration is not effective everywhere. Oyster reef sills, which are often built along eroding shorelines, may not support viable oyster populations for protection against SLR if sited in the subtidal zone in high salinity areas (Baggett et al. 2015 ; Ridge et al. 2015 ; Walles et al. 2016 ). Further, the value of shoreline stabilization provided by oyster reef restoration can vary greatly by location, and restoration investments may not be recovered in places where oyster harvesting practices are particularly destructive (Grabowski et al. 2012 ).

Vegetated coastal habitats provide important carbon sequestration services and have more long-term potential than terrestrial forests due to higher rates of organic carbon burial in sediments (McLeod et al. 2011 ). Restored tidal marsh and mangroves may offer more carbon benefits relative to newly created wetlands or through passive management approaches (Kroeger et al. 2017 ). The global value of coastal vegetated sequestration is between $6.1 and $42 billion USD annually, while conversion and degradation of these habitats can release between 0.15 and 1.02 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year (Pendleton et al. 2012 ). In Massachusetts, a 20-acre restoration project that removed two culverts to restore tidal flows to a salt marsh showed a net increase in carbon sequestration of 76 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Another 60-acre restoration project removed over four feet of wetland fill to restore salt marsh and grassland habitat, which led to a net increase in carbon sequestration of 101 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (MA DER 2012 ; 2014 ). The differences in carbon sequestration rates between these restoration sites may be due to the amount of carbon sequestered by various habitat types, such as high versus low saltmarsh and filled uplands versus coastal grasslands (MA DER 2014 ).

Lastly, adaptive frameworks and decision support tools that allow managers to integrate and continuously update predictions of risk from climate change, land use and human population growth projections can increase the effectiveness of the types of natural infrastructure described in Table 2 and support short- and long-term biological, cultural, social, and economic goals (e.g., Bartuszevige et al. 2016 ; Anderson and Barnett 2017 ). The consideration of quantitative thresholds to climate and other stressors can also help establish management targets and timelines (Powell et al. 2017 ). For example, when sediment augmentation is used as an approach for tidal marsh restoration, SLR and storm projections along with threshold data for marsh habitats can guide the frequency and amount of sediment deposition, monitoring and maintenance needed to keep pace with gradual and episodic changes (Foley et al. 2015 ). Other management options (e.g., retreat from coasts and open space preservation) focus on risk reduction by moving people and property out of harm’s way, often with economic incentives like flood insurance discounts. When combined with other zoning and land use protections, these actions can create secondary and tertiary benefits of increasing the persistence and resilience of natural habitats and species. For example, managing lands after the re-location of people or infrastructure in the coastal zone can enable the natural migration of coastal systems as needed in response to relative SLR. More information about how to apply these and other adaptation approaches is available through the Massachusetts Wildlife Climate Action Tool ( https://climateactiontool.org ).

A comparison of management approaches utilizing natural infrastructure and traditional grey infrastructure

Grey infrastructure has long been used to protect coastal communities from wave impacts, flooding and erosion. However, the myriad benefits that natural infrastructure can provide to ecological and human communities (Table 2 ) has made them an increasingly attractive alternative to grey infrastructure. In addition, research shows that restoration and management using natural infrastructure can be equally or more successful than grey infrastructure for flood risk reduction when implemented in appropriate places (e.g., Gedan et al. 2010 ; Temmerman et al. 2013 ; Jonkman et al. 2013 ; Small-Lorenz et al. 2016 ; Bayraktarov et al. 2016 ).

Natural infrastructure is naturally dynamic and in many ways resilient to the threats from SLR and storms, because it has some capacity to self-repair with minimal maintenance (Temmerman and Kirwan 2015 ). Conversely, grey infrastructure requires costly repairs following catastrophic storms, augmentation such as increased seawall heights to keep pace with rising actuarial risks, regular maintenance to delay deterioration and prolong design life, as well as eventual replacement (Temmerman et al. 2013 ; National Science and Technology Council 2015 ). In addition, grey infrastructure can adversely impact the surrounding natural environment in many ways, such as through loss of sediment (NRC 2007 ), decreases in beach volume and dimension (Kraus and Pilkey 1988 ; Hill 2015 ), and loss of intertidal habitat (NRC 2007 ; USEPA 2009 ; National Science and Technology Council 2015 ). Grey infrastructure can further lead to habitat fragmentation, declines in biodiversity, increases in invasive species, and reduced habitat migration inland in response to SLR (Bilkovic et al. 2016 and references within). These adverse impacts can degrade or inhibit ecosystem services provided by coastal habitats located adjacent to grey infrastructure.

Hybrid approaches that combine natural and grey infrastructure have been shown to contribute to societal, economic and environmental goals (e.g., National Science and Technology Council 2015 ). However, more information about the relative benefits and costs is needed to inform decisions on the use of each approach (grey, natural) alone or in concert (Sutton-Grier et al. 2015 ). As a starting point to address this need, we synthesized examples of coastal management and restoration actions with their corresponding economic and/or ecological derived value estimates (Table 3 ). We note that while these estimates provide some indication of the relative economic benefits, high uncertainty remains and may have limited transferability from one location to another, particularly if valuations are based on a single site.

• Natural infrastructure

There is an increasing number of studies demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of using natural infrastructure for coastal risk reduction (e.g., Gedan et al. 2010 ; Grabowski et al. 2012 ; Temmerman et al. 2013 ; Barbier 2013 ; Abt Associates 2014 ; Temmerman and Kirwan 2015 ; Martin and Watson 2016 ; Small-Lorenz et al. 2016 ; Narayan et al. 2016 ; Reguero et al. 2018 ). A synthesis study of restoration projects worldwide found costs and success rates vary by habitat, with mangroves requiring relatively lower investment in comparison to seagrasses, salt marshes and oyster reefs (Bayraktarov et al. 2016 ). Restoration of salt marshes and coral reefs exhibited the greatest success with annual survival rates of 64.8% and 64.5%, respectively, while seagrass habitats had the lowest post-restoration annual survival rates with a median survival rate of 38% (Bayraktarov et al. 2016 ). Grabowski et al. ( 2012 ) analyzed the cost-benefit ratio of oyster reefs and found that restoration costs are typically recovered in 2–14 years, depending on where restoration occurs and the range of services achieved. Overall, the costs associated with natural infrastructure vary widely and depend on many factors, such as design specifications, size and location of project, materials, maintenance, and disturbances that determine how often and the degree to which maintenance and rebuilding are required (NRC 2014 ). Restored or created habitats and their ecosystem services generally require several years to decades to become well established (NRC 2007 ; Temmerman et al. 2013 ), while hard structures can often be built quickly and offer immediate flood protection to surrounding communities.

There remains high uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of natural infrastructure for services like flood risk reduction compared to traditional grey infrastructure. Existing information on flood risk reduction and erosion control has been largely anecdotal to date; this lack of concrete evidence likely inhibits implementation of natural infrastructure, even in cases where it may be less costly than grey infrastructure over the long term. Consequently, it is important to increase the number of valuation studies that definitively link natural infrastructure to the full suite of potential ecosystem and economic benefits, including those that are not traditionally marketed such as flood protection (Table 3 ) (Barbier 2013 ).

The global value of ecosystem services provided by natural infrastructure could decline by as much as $51 trillion USD per year or increase by $30 trillion per year based on four alternative global land use and management scenarios (Kubiszewski et al. 2017 ). Therefore, better communication and public outreach about the costs and benefits of natural infrastructure is critical to ensure decision makers and planners have all existing options available to them to inform action.

Grey infrastructure

Grey infrastructure, such as seawalls, storm surge barriers, dikes, and levees, have been used for decades for protection from storms and flooding. However, these approaches can have unintended negative impacts to habitats that can ultimately undermine the additional flood protection and other services that coastal habitats provide. Hard structures that parallel shores reflect wave energy and constrain the natural inland migration of the shoreline in response to erosion, ultimately causing beaches to become narrower and the beach seaward of the structure to drown (Defeo et al. 2009 ). This coastal squeezing (Doody 2004 ; Torio and Chmura 2013 ) can disrupt normal sediment dynamics, lower the diversity and abundance of biota, and lead to habitat loss (Galbraith et al. 2002 ; Defeo et al. 2009 ). Revetments, which are sloping structures made of riprap, concrete mats, timber, or other materials to stop shoreline erosion, can be effective for erosion control if designed and constructed properly. But if revetments are improperly sited on eroding shores, they can accelerate loss of intertidal habitat behind and adjacent to them, causing the beach to convert to open water (NRC 2007 ). Groins and breakwaters, which are shore-perpendicular and shore-parallel structures, respectively, can similarly reduce sediment supplies in downdrift beaches, causing or accelerating erosion on the inshore sides of the barrier and narrowing or reducing beach habitat (NRC 2007 ; USEPA 2009 ).

Grey infrastructure combined with other coastal development and land use changes can lead to further losses in the ecosystem services that coastal habitats provide to society (Table 2 ; Bayraktarov et al. 2016 ). For example, dams restrict natural sediment loads needed for salt marsh accretion and maintenance (Weston 2014 ), decrease geomorphic stability, and degrade salt marsh habitats (Deegan et al. 2012 ). Grey infrastructure near mangrove habitat can convert mangrove forests to deep water by causing scouring along the front of structures and to downdrift areas (Gilman et al. 2008 ). Bulkheads can degrade spawning and nursery habitat, while also increasing shoreline erosion. When bulkheads are used to replace degraded vegetated habitats, the water quality improvement function of native vegetation is lost (NRC 2007 ; Currin et al. 2010 ).

The direct costs associated with grey infrastructure are well understood due to their long-term implementation, and from being designed according to well-vetted specifications. However, grey infrastructure can generate hidden costs over their design life due to degradation and gradual failure (RAE 2015 ). In addition, damages caused by these structures to surrounding ecosystems have not yet been fully quantified and documented (RAE 2015 ). While habitat restoration can be expensive (e.g., Bayraktarov et al. 2016 ), when represented as average costs per linear foot, the estimated costs of grey infrastructure are generally greater compared to non-structural and hybrid approaches (CCRM 2014 ).

Hybrid approaches

Hybrid approaches combine grey and natural infrastructure to varying degrees to maximize flood defenses and additional benefits (e.g., Sutton-Grier et al. 2015 ; Bridges et al. 2015 ). In some scenarios and locations, hybrid approaches provide the greatest flood protection benefit to coastal communities (USACE 2013 ; NOAA 2015 ; Schuster and Doerr 2015 ). Breakwaters and sills are common in marshes, mangroves and sandy dunes to help attenuate waves and stabilize sediments (NRC 2007 ). Sills are typically built of oyster shell or granite and placed on the seaward-side of a marsh or mangrove (Sutton-Grier et al. 2015 ), while breakwaters are generally made of timber, rock or concrete and placed further offshore than sills (RAE 2015 ). Mangroves can particularly benefit from hybrid shoreline stabilization approaches that use sills and breakwaters to reduce wave energy and maintain calm, low energy conditions that mangroves need to thrive (NRC 2007 and references within). Living shoreline techniques are often hybrid approaches that pair biogenic species and plantings with hardened infrastructure for shoreline protection. For instance, the creation of fringing marsh through plantings may be augmented by the installation of rock sills or other artificial breakwaters along the seaward edge and parallel to the marsh.

More novel hybrid approaches include the use of natural infrastructure to protect permanent and temporary grey infrastructure from storms and waves until the natural features mature and become well established (Sutton-Grier et al. 2015 ). For instance, oyster reefs located seaward of armored shorelines serve as natural breakwaters that attenuate wave energy and, thus, lessen the impacts of storms, while promoting sediment deposition shoreward of the reef and mitigating habitat loss caused by the existing grey infrastructure (USEPA 2009 ; Scyphers et al. 2011 ; Baggett et al. 2015 ).

When living shorelines are used alone or as hybrid approaches, monitoring results suggest these installments can be effective for enhancing coastal resilience. In Maryland, over 300 marsh fringe sites have been constructed and monitored over a 20-year period, demonstrating they have been effective for erosion control and wetland habitat creation (NRC 2007 and references within). Like many of the approaches discussed in this study, the costs of living shoreline projects can vary greatly with location (RAE 2015 ) and are not appropriate or effective everywhere. Initial costs can be significantly less than those for grey infrastructure, yet long-term costs will depend on whether and how frequently the living shoreline must be repaired or rebuilt (Titus et al. 2009 ; Temmerman et al. 2013 ; Bilkovic et al. 2016 ).

The future of natural infrastructure: opportunities and limitations

The implementation of natural infrastructure alone or through hybrid approaches to enhance resilience to SLR, storms and other coastal stressors is becoming more widespread in practice (DOI Metrics Expert Group 2015 ; Abt Associates 2015 , 2016 ; MARCO and NWF 2017 ). Currently, however, managers have limited opportunities to directly compare risk reduction benefits and costs with traditional grey infrastructure. Regulatory barriers, coupled with lack of public awareness and contractor knowledge of the long-term services provided by natural infrastructure, have impeded permitting processes, which remain cumbersome compared to grey infrastructure. Streamlined guidance for the implementation of natural infrastructure, especially following storms and other extreme events, could give communities greater confidence and advance their application. In particular, best practices for site selection and the conditions where natural infrastructure can be most effective for maximizing socio-ecological benefits are still needed (Bayraktarov et al. 2016 ; Jahn 2016 ).

Ecosystem service valuation represents a growing opportunity for enhanced socio-ecological resilience planning and more informed decision-making. Additional studies with greater geographical coverage, consistent terminology, and methodologies for quantifying and valuing services, particularly non-marketed and indirect ecosystem services, would help increase awareness of the total benefits related to natural infrastructure (Barbier 2013 ; Olander et al. 2015 ). Lastly, uncertainty about how climate change will impact ecosystem services, including linking changes in ecosystem structure and function to the production of goods and services, limits management and decision making in this arena (Barbier 2013 ).

Preliminary, yet rapidly, maturing information on natural infrastructure and hybrid approaches can be used to take action and integrate their benefits into resilience planning guidelines. Here, we present potential actions that can increase information and reduce uncertainty around the use of natural infrastructure in coastal planning processes.

Substantially increase performance evaluation and widespread monitoring of natural infrastructure.

Identify and develop best practices, clear monitoring goals and standardized post-implementation performance evaluations.

Communicate and disseminate results more widely, particularly when surprises and complications occur (Jahn 2016 ; MARCO and NWF 2017 ).

Explore innovative approaches and funding mechanisms for increasing data and long-term monitoring of restoration before and after project implementation, such as using citizen science networks (MARCO and NWF 2017 ).

Where possible, use quantitative thresholds to stressors to inform decisions regarding site selection, design, and implementation of natural infrastructure and hybrid approaches (Adger et al. 2009 ; Stein et al. 2013 ; Stein et al. 2014 ; Powell et al. 2017 ).

Develop scenarios to increase understanding of how resilient natural infrastructure may be at different locations, under future conditions, and timelines to thresholds that may affect habitats and ecosystem services.

Increase information on the potential benefits and costs of natural, grey and hybrid approaches for decision-making in the coastal zone.

Develop and expand standardized long-term monitoring protocols and common metrics to clarify how natural infrastructure performs relative to traditional armoring practices.

Expand cost-benefit analyses to account for the cumulative services accrued by natural infrastructure in comparison to grey infrastructure, as well as long-term maintenance and augmentation costs of both approaches.

Increase research to clarify the link between natural infrastructure and potential ecosystem services, as well as the extent to which grey infrastructure affects ecosystem services.

Increase synthesis of studies on ecosystem service valuation related to natural infrastructure to stimulate new research and reduce data gaps.

Increase assessment of the potential benefits of natural infrastructure for carbon sequestration (Bianchi et al. 2013 ; Jerath et al. 2016 ; Yando et al. 2016 ).

Increase coordination and planning around socio-ecological resilience goals.

Better communicate the potential benefits of coastal habitats and biodiversity as part of a broader community adaptation strategy (Mawdsley et al. 2009 ; NASEM 2016 ).

Increase outreach to landowners as part of planning processes to facilitate prioritization of areas where land acquisition may be the best option for autonomous change.

Seek opportunities to communicate and integrate the full range of ecosystem services derived from natural infrastructure into community resilience planning and decision making (e.g., Grimm et al. 2013 ; Nelson et al. 2013 ; Grimm et al. 2016 ).

Engage state agencies as part of project planning and implementation processes (USEPA 2009 ). For instance, a best practice for development of State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) is to invite representatives of municipal, county and/or regional planning entities to serve on conservation plan committees (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2012 ).

Take advantage of regular planning cycles (e.g., SWAPs, hazard mitigation, comprehensive/land use) to coordinate socio-ecological resilience goals. While timeframes differ, these activities bring multiple partners and stakeholders together to identify shared priorities, develop strategies, and inform each other’s benchmarks, successes and challenges.

Conclusions

Coastal management strategies that incorporate natural infrastructure and hybrid approaches provide opportunities for risk reduction and coordination around shared socioeconomic and ecological goals. Studies on climate resilience have grown rapidly in recent years (Fisichelli et al. 2016 ) and are increasingly being considered in practices related to coastal protection, restoration and management (Mawdsley et al. 2009 ; NOAA 2010 ; Stein et al. 2014 ; Schuster and Doerr 2015 ; Staudinger et al. 2015 ; NOAA 2016 ; USFWS 2016 ), as well as national assessments and agency operations (e.g., USACE 2014 ; iCASS 2016 ). Recent federal efforts, such as the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council ( 2013 ) and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resiliency Competitive Grant Program that were established in response to major disasters, have helped to advance implementation of coastal adaptation strategies for enhanced socio-ecological resilience at federal, state and local levels. Nonetheless, challenges to systematic implementation of natural infrastructure for enhanced coastal resilience remain, and many practitioners have limited resources to keep up with this rapidly advancing field.

To meet this need, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge of how tidal marshes, beaches and barrier islands, biogenic reefs, and mangroves have been used as natural infrastructure to enhance coastal resilience in response to SLR and coastal storms along the United States Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean coasts. Our summary demonstrates that investments in natural infrastructure in the coastal zone can have measured value for coastal communities while increasing ecological persistence and resilience. However, information is highly nuanced and spatially variable. More research is needed to develop best practices for where a particular natural infrastructure may be most effectively applied and what can realistically be expected in terms of performance and derived ecosystem services. Natural infrastructure may not be the best option in some locations, and grey infrastructure or hybrid approaches may perform better depending on the local landscape and socio-ecological goals. Regardless, ensuring coastal managers and planners are aware of all potential options and of the short- and long-term costs and benefits is key for advancing this field.

Abt Associates (2014) Estimating the change in ecosystem service values from coastal restoration. Prepared by Abt Associates for the Center for American Progress and Oxfam America, 130 p

Abt Associates (2015) Developing socio-economic metrics to measure DOI hurricane Sandy project and program outcomes. Prepared for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 125 p

Abt Associates (2016) Efforts to develop standardized socio-economic and ecological performance metrics for natural infrastructure. Presentation for the National Oceanic and Administration’s Social Coastal Forum. S. Taylor, K. Penn, and R. Bennett (presenters). Online at: https://coast.noaa.gov/socialcoast/ppt/Meredith%20Taylor.pdf

Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Rockström J (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309:1036–1039

Article   Google Scholar  

Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni E, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Chang 93:335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z

Anderson MG, Barnett A (2017) Resilient coastal sites for conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. 280 p

Arkema KK, Guannel G, Verutes G, Wood SA, Guerry A, Ruckelshaus M, Kareiva P, Lacayo M, Silver JM (2013) Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1944

Armitage AR, Highfield WE, Brody SD, Louchouarn P (2015) The contribution of mangrove expansion to salt marsh loss on the Texas Gulf Coast. PLoS One 10(5):e0125404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125404

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Teaming with Wildlife Committee, State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Best Practices Working Group (2012) Best practices for state wildlife action plans—voluntary guidance to states for revision and implementation. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, 80 p

Baggett LP, Powers SP, Brumbaugh RD, Coen LD, DeAngelis BM, Greene JK, Hancock BT, Morlock SM, Allen BL, Breitburg DL, Bushek D, Grabowski JH, Grizzle RE, Grosholz ED, La Peyre MK, Luckenback MW et al (2015) Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration. Restor Ecol 23(6):737–745

Barbier EB (2013) Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and restoration: progress and challenges. Resources 2:213–230. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030213

Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, Primavera J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA, Stoms DM, Kennedy CJ et al (2008a) Coastal ecosystem–based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319:321–323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150349

Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, Primavera J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA, Stoms DM, Kennedy CJ et al (2008b) Supporting online material for coastal ecosystem–based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319:321. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150349

Barbier EB, Georgiou IY, Enchelmeyer B, Reed DJ (2013) The value of wetlands in protecting Southeast Louisiana from hurricane storm surges. PLoS One 8(3):e58715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058715

Bartuszevige AM, Taylor K, Daniels A, Carter MF (2016) Landscape design: integrating ecological, social, and economic considerations into conservation planning. Wildl Soc Bull 40(3):411–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.683

Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074

Bianchi TS, Allison MA, Zhao J, Li X, Comeaux RS, Feagin RA, Kulawardhana RW (2013) Historical reconstruction of mangrove expansion in the Gulf of Mexico: linking climate change with carbon sequestration in coastal wetlands. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 119(1):7–16

Bilkovic DM, Mitchell M, Mason P, Duhring K (2016) The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. Coast Manag 44(3):161–174

Bin O, Dumas C, Poulter B, Whitehead J (2007) Measuring the impacts of climate change on North Carolina coastal resources. Final report prepared for National Commission on Energy Policy, Washington, DC, 101 p

Bridges TS, Wagner PW, Burks-Copes KA, Bates ME, Collier Z, Fischenich CJ, Gailani JZ, Leuck LD, Piercy CD, Rosati JD, Russo EJ, Shafer DJ, Suedel BC, Vuxton EA, Wamsley TV (2015) Use of natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for coastal resilience. Final Report, ERDC SR-15-X. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

Center for Coastal Resources Management [CCRM] (2014) Living shoreline implementation: challenges and solutions. Rivers & Coast (newsletter of the Center for Coastal Resources Management), Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2014). Available at: http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/pubs/rivers&coast/RC914.pdf .

Costanza R, Perez-Maqueo O, Martinez ML, Sutton P, Anderson SJ, Mulder K (2008) The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37(4):241–248

Couvillion BR, Beck H (2013) Marsh collapse thresholds for coastal Louisiana estimated using elevation and vegetation index data. In: Brock, J.C., J.A. Barras, and S.J. Williams (eds.), Understanding and Predicting Change in the Coastal Ecosystems of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. J Coastal Res, Special Issue (63), p. 58–67

Couvillion BR, Barras JA, Steyer GD, Sleavin W, Fischer M, Beck H, Trahan N, Griffin B, Heckman D (2011) Land area change in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. pamphlet

Craft C, Clough J, Ehman J, Joye S, Park R, Pennings S, Guo H, Machmuller M (2009) Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 7. https://doi.org/10.1890/070219

Currin CA, Chappell WS, Deaton A (2010) Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: The living shoreline approach in North Carolina. In: Shipman, H., M.N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K.L. Fresh, and R.S. Dinicola (eds.), 2010: Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5254, p. 91–102

Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18:598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Dahl KA, Spanger-Siegried E, Caldas A, Udvardy S (2017) Effective inundation of continental United States communities with 21st century sea-level rise. Elem Sci Anth 5:37. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.234

Deegan LA, Johnson DS, Warren RS, Peterson BJ, Fleeger JW, Fagherazzi S, Wollheim WM (2012) Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490:388–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11533

Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, Dugan J, Jones A, Lastra M, Scapini F (2009) Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 81:1–12

Department of the Interior (DOI) Metrics Expert Group (2015) Recommendations for assessing the effects of the DOI Hurricane Sandy Mitigation and Resilience Program on ecological system and infrastructure resilience in the Northeast coastal region. Report for the Department of the Interior, 69 p

Donnelly JP, Bertness MD (2001) Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. PNAS 98(25):14218–14223

Doody J, (2004) ’Coastal squeeze‘—an historical perspective. J Coast Conserv 10(1):129–138

Enwright NM, Griffith KT, Osland MJ (2015) Incorporating future change into current conservation planning—Evaluating tidal saline wetland migration along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast under alternative sea-level rise and urbanization scenarios: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 969. Online at: https://doi.org/10.3133/ds969 .

Erwin RM, Cahoon DR, Prosser DJ, Sanders GM, Hensel P (2006) Surface elevation dynamics in vegetated Spartina marshes versus Unvegetated tidal ponds along the mid-Atlantic Coast, USA, with implications to Waterbirds. Estuar Coast 29(1):96–106

Fagherazzi S, Mariotti G, Wiberg PL, McGlathery KJ (2013) Marsh collapse does not require sea level rise. Oceanography 26(3):70–77. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.47

Feagin RA, Sherman DJ, Grant WE (2005) Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats. Front Ecol Environ 3(7):359–364

Ferrario F, Beck MW, Storlazzi CD, Micheli F, Shepard CC, Airoldi L (2014) The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nat Commun 5:3794. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4794

Field CD (1995) Impact of expected climate change on mangroves. Hydrobiologia 295:75–81

Fisichelli NA, Schuurman GW, Hoffman CH (2016) Is ‘resilience’ maladaptive? Towards an accurate lexicon for climate change adaptation. Environ Manag 57:753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0650-6

Foley MM, Martone RG, Fox MD, Kappel CV, Mease LA, Erickson AL, Halpern BS, Selkoe KA, Taylor P, Scarborough C (2015) Using ecological thresholds to inform resource management: current options and future possibilities. Front Mar Sci, 2(95). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00095 .

Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Galbraith H, Jones R, Park RA, Clough JS, Herrod-Julius S, Harrington B, Page G (2002) Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173–183

Ganju NK, Defne Z, Kirwan ML, Fagherazzi S, D’Alpaos A, Carniello L (2017) Spatially integrative metrics reveal hidden vulnerability of microtidal salt marshes. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14156

Gedan KB, Kirwan ML, Wolanski E, Barbier EB, Silliman BR (2010) The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0003-7

Gilman EL, Ellison J, Duke NC, Field C (2008) Threats to mangroves from climate change and adaptation options. Aquat Bot 89(2):237–250

Gittman RK, Popowich AM, Bruno JF, Peterson CH (2014) Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads during a category 1 hurricane. Ocean Coast Manag 102:94–102

Grabowski JH, Brumbaugh RD, Conrad RF, Keeler AG, Opaluch JJ, Peterson CH, Piehler MF, Powers SP, Smyth AR (2012) Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience 62(10):900–909. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.10

Griggs GB (2005) The impacts of coastal armoring. Shore Beach 73(1):13–22

Grimm NB, Staudinger MD, Staudt A, Carter SL, Chapin FS III, Kareiva P, Ruckelshaus M, Stein BA (2013) Climate-change impacts on ecological systems: introduction to a US assessment. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):456–464. https://doi.org/10.1890/120310

Grimm NB, Groffman P, Staudinger M, Tallis H (2016) Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: process and prospects for sustained assessment. Clim Chang 135:97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1547-3

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (2013) Initial comprehensive plan: restoring the gulf coast’s ecosystem and economy. Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, 22 p.

Gutierrez BT, Williams SJ, Thieler ER (2007) Potential for shoreline changes due to sea-level rise along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1278. Web only, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1278 .

Hill K (2015) Coastal infrastructure: a typology for the next century of adaptation to sea-level rise. Front Ecol Environ 13(9):468–476. https://doi.org/10.1890/150088

iCASS (2016) Best practices for LCC landscape conservation designs. Discussion draft of workshop in St. Louis, MO. Online at: https://lccnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Best%20Practices%20for%20LCC%20Landscape%20Conservation%20Designs_v06162016.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Jahn J (2016) Site assessment & project performance monitoring: the importance of standardization for the development of the N-NBF Practice. GreenVest. Presentation made at the Nature-Based Solutions to Enhance Coastal Resilience Workshop, hosted by National Wildlife Federation on June 28, 2016

Jerath M, Bhat M, Rivera-Monroy VH, Castaneda-Moya E, Simard M, Twilley RR (2016) The role of economic, policy, and ecological factors in estimating the value of carbon stocks in Everglades mangrove forests, South Florida, USA. Environ Sci Pol 66:160–169

Jonkman SN, Hillen MM, Nicholls RJ, Kanning W, van Ledden M (2013) Costs of adapting coastal Defences to sea-level rise – new estimates and their implications. J Coast Res 29(5):1212–1226. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00230.1.

Kearney MS, Turner RE (2016) Microtidal marshes: can these widespread and fragile marshes survive increasing Climate–Sea level variability and human action? J Coast Res 32(3):686–699. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00069.1.

Kirwan ML, Temmerman S, Skeehan EE, Guntenspergen GR, Fagherazzi S (2016) Overestimation of marsh vulnerability to sea level rise. Nat Clim Chang 6:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2909

Knutson PL, Brochu RA, Seelig WN, Inskeep M (1982) Wave dampening in Spartina alterniflora marshes. Wetlands 2(1):87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160548

Kraus NC, Pilkey OH (1988) The effects of seawalls on the beach. J Coast Res, Special Issue 4:1–28

Google Scholar  

Kroeger T (2012) Dollars and sense: economic benefits and impacts from two oyster reef restoration projects in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The Nature Conservancy 110 p.

Kroeger KD, Crooks S, Moseman-Valtierra S, Tang J (2017) Restoring tides to reduce methane emissions in impounded wetlands: a new and potent blue carbon climate change intervention. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12138-4

Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Anderson S and Sutton P (2017) The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosyst Serv, 26:289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.004 .

La Peyre MK, Serra K, Joyner TA, Humphries A (2015) Assessing shoreline exposure and oyster habitat suitability maximizes potential success for sustainable shoreline protection using restored oyster reefs. PeerJ 3:e1317. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1317

Lentz EE, Thieler ER, Plant NG, Stippa SR, Horton RM, Gesch DB (2016) Evaluation of dynamic coastal response to sea-level rise modifies inundation likelihood. Nat Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2957

Lott CA, Fischer RA, Pashley DN (2007) Towards the integration of federal dredging and beach nourishment activities with North American coastal bird conservation programs. Papers and Presentations, Research Gate, 355–364

Manis JE, Garvis SK, Jachec SM et al (2015) Wave attenuation experiments over living shorelines over time: a wave tank study to assess recreational boating pressures. J Coast Conserv 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-014-0349-5

MARCO and NWF (2017) Working towards a robust monitoring framework for natural and nature-based features in the Mid-Atlantic using citizen science. Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean and National Wildlife Federation, 23 p

Martin TG, Watson JEM (2016) Intact ecosystems provide best defence against climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:122–124

Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration [MA DER] (2012) Economic impacts of ecological restoration in Massachusetts: Summary of Report Findings. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological Restoration, prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., 35 p

Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration [MA DER] (2014) Estimates of ecosystem service values from ecological restoration projects in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological Restoration, prepared by ICF International, 40 p

Mawdsley JR, O’Malley R, Ojima DS (2009) A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 23(5):1080–1089

McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Bjork M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman BR (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9(10):552–560. https://doi.org/10.1890/110004

Melillo JM, Richmond Terese (TC), Yohe GW, (Eds), 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: the Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0Z31WJ2 , 841 pp.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trend. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 80

Morelli TL, Daly C, Dobrowski SZ, Dulen DM, Ebersole JL, Jackson ST et al (2016) Managing climate change Refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS One 11(8):e0159909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159909

Morris JT, Sundareshwar PV, Nietch CT, Kjerfve B, Cahoon DR (2002) Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83(10):2869–2877

Narayan S, Beck MW, Reguero BG, Losada IJ, van Wesenbeeck B, Pontee N et al (2016) The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based Defences. PLoS One 11(5):e0154735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735

Narayan S, Beck MW, Wilson P, Thomas CJ, Guerrero A, Shepard CC, Reguero BG, Franco G, Ingram JC, Trespalacios D (2017) The value of coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09269-z

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2010) Adapting to climate change: a planning guide for state coastal managers. NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 138 p. Online at: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/adaptation.html .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2015) A Strategy for a healthy Gulf of Mexico: resilience through ecosystem restoration, 10 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2016) Guide for considering climate change in coastal conservation. NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 54 p.

National Research Council of the National Academies [NRC] (2007) Mitigating shore erosion along sheltered coasts. National Research Council of The National Academies, Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, D.C., 189 p

National Research Council of the National Academies [NRC] (2014) Reducing coastal risk on the east and gulf coasts. Committee on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science Engineering and Planning: Coastal Risk Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, Ocean Studies Board, and Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council.

National Science and Technology Council (2015) Ecosystem-Service Assessment: Research needs for coastal green infrastructure. Product of the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability of the National Science and Technology Council, 48 p

Nelson EJ, Kareiva P, Ruckelshaus M, Arkema K, Geller G, Girvetz E, Goodrich D, Matzek V, Pinksy M, Reid W, Saunders M, Semmens D, Tallis H (2013) Climate change’s impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):483–493. https://doi.org/10.1890/120312

Olander L, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire L, Polasky S1, Urban D, Boyd J, Wainger L, Palmer M (2015) Best practices for integrating ecosystem services into federal decision making. Durham: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University. https://doi.org/10.13016/M2CH07 .

Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Craft C, Fourqurean JW, Kauffman JB, Marba N, Megonigal P et al (2012) Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 7(9):e43542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043542

Powell EJ, Tyrrell MC, Milliken A, Tirpak JM, Staudinger MD (2017) A synthesis of thresholds for focal species along the U.S. Atlantic and gulf coasts: a review of research and applications. Ocean Coast Manage 148(1):75–88 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.012

Raposa KB, Weber RLJ, Ekberg MC, Ferguson W (2015) Vegetation dynamics in Rhode Island salt marshes during a period of Accelerating Sea level rise and Extreme Sea level events. Estuar Coast. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-015-0018-4

Raposa KB, Wasson K, Smith E, Crooks JA, Delgado P, Fernald SH, Ferner MC, Helms A, Hice LA, Mora JW, Puckett B, Sanger D, Shull S, Spurrier L, Stevens R, Lerberg S (2016) Assessing tidal marsh resilience to sea-level rise at broad geographic scales with multi-metric indices. Biol Conserv 204:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.015

Reguero BG, Beck MW, Bresch DN, Calil J, 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(4):e0192132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192132

Restore America’s Estuaries [RAE] (2015) Living shorelines: from barriers to opportunities. Arlington, VA, 55 p

Ridge JT, Rodriguez AB, Fodrie RJ, Lindquist NL, Brodeur MC, Coleman SE, Grabowski JH, Theuerkauf EJ (2015) Maximizing oyster-reef growth supports green infrastructure with accelerating sea-level rise. Sci Rep 5:14785. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14785

Schuster E, Doerr P (2015) A guide for incorporating ecosystem service valuation into coastal restoration projects. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Chapter. Delmont, NJ., 79 p

Scyphers SB, Powers SP, Heck KL Jr, Byron D (2011) Oyster reefs as natural breakwaters mitigate shoreline loss and facilitate fisheries. PLoS One 6(8):e22396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022396

Shepard CC, Agostini VN, Gilmer B, Allen T, Stone J, Brooks W, Beck MW (2012) Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island. Nat Hazards 60(2):727–745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0046-8

Shriver WG, Wiest WA (2013) Working paper on incorporating climate change with conservation planning: a case study for tidal marsh bird conservation in Delaware, USA. K.D. Messer (ed.). APEC Research Reports, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Delaware, 30 p

Sims SA, Seavey JR, Curtin CG (2013) Room to move? Threatened shorebird habitat in the path of sea level rise - dynamic beaches, multiple users, and mixed ownership: a case study from Rhode Island, USA. J Coast Conserv 17:339–350

Small-Lorenz SL, Stein BA, Schrass K, Holstein DN, Mehta AV (2016) Natural defenses in action: harnessing nature to protect our communities. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation, 44 p

Solomon JA, Donnelly MJ, Walters LJ (2014) Effects of sea level rise on the intertidal oyster Crassostrea virginica by field experiments. J Coast Res SI 68:57–64

Staudinger MD, Morelli TL, Bryan AM (2015) Integrating climate change into northeast and midwest state wildlife action plans. Department of the Interior Northeast Climate Science Center Report, Amherst, Massachusetts, 52 p

Stein BA, Staudt A, Cross MS, Dubois NS, Enquist C, Griffis R, Hansen LJ, Hellmann JJ, Lawler JJ, Nelson EJ, Pairis A (2013) Preparing for and managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):502–510. https://doi.org/10.1890/120277

Stein BA, Glick P, Edelson N, Staudt A (eds) (2014) Climate-smart conservation: putting adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 272 p

Sutton-Grier AE, Wowk K, 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 Policy, 51:137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006 .

Taylor EB, Gibeaut JC, Yoskowitz DW, Starek MJ (2015) Assessment and monetary valuation of the storm protection function of beaches and Foredunes on the Texas coast. J Coast Res 31(5):1205–1216. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-14-00133.1

Temmerman S, Kirwan ML (2015) Building land with a rising sea: cost-efficient nature-based solutions can help to sustain coastal societies. Science 349(6248):588–589

Temmerman S, Meire P, Bouma TJ, Herman PMJ, Ysebaert T, De Vriend HJ (2013) Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504:79–83

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] (2016) Effective monitoring to evaluate ecological restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 266. https://doi.org/10.17226/23476

Titus JG, Anderson KE, Cahoon KR, Gesch DB, Gill SK, Gutierrez BT, Thieler ER, Williams SJ (2009) Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on the Mid-Atlantic region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1, 320 p

Torio DD, Chmura GL (2013) Impacts of sea level rise on marsh as fish habitat. Estuar Coast. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9740-y

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (2013) Coastal risk reduction and resilience. CWTS 2013–3. Washington, DC: Directorate of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (2014) Climate change adaptation plan and report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USACE Climate Preparedness and Resilience Steering Committee, 53 p

U.S. Climate Change Science Program [CCSP] (2009) Thresholds of climate change in ecosystems. Fagre, D.B., C.W. Charles, C.D. Allen, C. Birkeland, F.S. Chapin III, P.M. Groffman, G.R. Guntenspergen, A.K. Knapp, A.D. McGuire, P.J. Mulholland, D.P.C. Peters, D.D. Roby, and George Sugihara. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 86 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (2009) Synthesis of adaptation options for coastal areas. Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Ready Estuaries Program. EPA 430-F-08-024

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2011) Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Merritt Island NWR. USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, Conservation Biology Program, Arlington, VA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2016) Building a stronger coast: hurricane Sandy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Updated July 2016, Accessed August 2016. Online at: https://www.fws.gov/hurricane/sandy/

Valle-Levinson A, Dutton A, Martin JB (2017) Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern United States. Geophys Res Lett 44. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073926

Walles B, Fodrie FJ, Nieuwhof S, Jewell OJD, Herman PMJ, Ysebaert T (2016) Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration should include tidal emersion: reply to Baggett et al. Restor Ecol 24(1):4–7

Wamsler C, Niven L, Beery TH, Bramryd T, Ekelund N, Jönsson KI, Osmani A, Palo T, Stålhammar S (2016) Operationalizing ecosystem-based adaptation: harnessing ecosystem services to buffer communities against climate change. Ecol Soc 21(1):31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08266-210131

Watson EB, Oczkowski AJ, Wigand C, Hanson AR, Davey EW, Crosby SC, Johnson RL, Andrews HM (2014) Nutrient enrichment and precipitation changes do not enhance resiliency of salt marshes to sea level rise in the northeastern U.S. Clim Chang 125:501–509

Watson EB, Andrews HM, Fischer A, Cencer M, Coiro L, Kelley S, Wigand C (2015) Growth and photosynthesis responses of two co-occurring marsh grasses to inundation and varied nutrients. Botany 93:671–683. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2015-0055

Wells S, Ravilous C, Corcoran E, 2006: In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK, 33 p

Weston NB (2014) Declining sediments and rising seas: an unfortunate convergence for tidal wetlands. Estuar Coast 37(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9654-8

Yando ES, Osland MJ, Willis JM, Day RH, Krauss KW, Hester MW (2016) Salt marsh-mangrove ecotones: using structural gradients to investigate the effects of woody plant encroachment on plant–soil interactions and ecosystem carbon pools. J Ecol 104:1020–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12571

Zhang KQ, Liu H, Li Y, Xu H, Shen J, Rhome J, Smith TJ III (2012) The role of mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 102–103:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.02.021

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported through funding provided by the National Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) and the Department of the Interior’s Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and its findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, or the U.S. Geological Survey. This manuscript is submitted for publication with the understanding that the United States Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes. We wish to thank the multi-LCC coastal resilience project advisory and core teams for their contributions and overall guidance on this project, including Cynthia Edwards, Brent Murray, Bill Bartush, Todd Jones-Ferrand, Kim Winton, Rua Mordecai, Jerry McMahon, Cynthia Bohn, Bill Uihlein, and Tim Breault.

Author information

Emily J. Powell

Present address: National Wildlife Federation, Gulf of Mexico Restoration Program, 505 E Huntland Dr., Suite 485, Austin, TX, 78752, USA

Megan C. Tyrrell

Present address: Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, 131 Waquoit Highway, PO Box 3092, Waquoit, MA, 02536, USA

Andrew Milliken

Present address: Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office and Western New England Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11 Lincoln Street, Essex Junction, VT, 05452, USA

Authors and Affiliations

North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Dr, Hadley, MA, 01035, USA

Emily J. Powell, Megan C. Tyrrell & Andrew Milliken

Gulf Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 700 Cajundome Boulevard, Lafayette, LA, 70506, USA

John M. Tirpak

DOI Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 611 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003-9297, USA

Michelle D. Staudinger

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily J. Powell .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Powell, E.J., Tyrrell, M.C., Milliken, A. et al. A review of coastal management approaches to support the integration of ecological and human community planning for climate change. J Coast Conserv 23 , 1–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0632-y

Download citation

Received : 19 December 2016

Revised : 29 June 2018

Accepted : 03 July 2018

Published : 31 July 2018

Issue Date : 15 February 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0632-y

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

• Restoration
• Sea level rise
• Coastal storms
• Ecosystem services
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: coastal environment in a changing world.

• 1 Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Earth Science Department, University of Cádiz, Puerto Real, Spain
• 2 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas, Ensenada, Mexico
• 3 Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Applied Physic Department, University of Cádiz, Puerto Real, Spain
• 4 Geo-Ocean, Univ Bretagne Sud, Univ Brest, CNRS, Ifremer, UMR6538, Vannes, France
• 5 Institute of Oceanography and Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
• 6 Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

Editorial on the Research Topic Coastal environment in a changing world

Coastal areas are among the most dynamic environments on Earth, affected by diverse continental and marine forcings, such as waves, tides, ocean currents, wind, and river discharges, interacting at different temporal and spatial scales. These areas also host 13% of the global urban population ( McGranahan et al., 2007 ) and a large proportion of human activities, including industry, transport, tourism, and recreation. Overpopulation and an increase in intensive exploitation activities are currently disrupting the evolution of coasts worldwide and undermining their future resilience ( Kombiadou et al., 2019 ). Moreover, the effects of climate change, associated with sea-level rise and changes in the magnitude and/or frequency of storms, may further contribute to altering the dynamics of these environments.

The aim of this Research Topic was to provide insights into some of the most prevalent processes that currently endanger our coasts and to assist in improving coastal management in the future. To achieve a comprehensive understanding of these problems, it is essential to conduct sustainable coastal monitoring activities and research that provide continuous information. This Research Topic consists of 10 papers that underscore the importance of addressing multiscale issues using a multidisciplinary approach that highlights crucial physical and environmental factors. The papers can be classified into four groups based on their themes.

Two of the contributions focus on the issues arising from ecosystem changes. Uribe-Martinez et al. address the growing problem of sargassum seaweed reaching tourist beaches. They provide valuable information that could assist the tourism industry and decision-makers in planning and prioritizing monitoring, collection, and restoration efforts. This would enable them to be prepared for unexpected arrivals of sargassum throughout the year, given the high variability of its distribution. On a different subject, Leichter et al. describe long-term patterns of giant kelp sea surface canopy area along with recent patterns of water column nitrate exposure inferred from temperature measurements at different sites on the southern California coast. They contribute to the understanding of the potential roles of seasonal and higher frequency nutrient dynamics for giant kelp persistence, under continuing ocean surface warming and an increasing frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves.

Coastal management is a topic that has also received attention due to the impact of climate change on coastal areas, with four articles addressing various management aspects. Fontán-Bouzas et al. emphasize the importance of identifying vulnerable sectors of beach-dune systems to support coastal management and propose an operational framework to construct a beach-dune system vulnerability map. In the same vein, Fernández-Montblanc et al. present a new methodology for assessing the risk to underwater cultural heritage sites in coastal areas due to wave-induced hazards. They provide a stepping stone toward a sustainable blue economy by ensuring the preservation of coastal environments and cultural heritage sites in the face of climate change. From a coastal development perspective, Saengsupavanich et al. examine the effectiveness of sand bypassing as a solution to jetty-induced coastal erosion in Thailand and identified the amount of sediment deposition that can inform sand bypassing budgets and implementation plans. Authorities build these coastal structures to protect the coast and improve living conditions. However, these structures can have significant environmental impacts, such as altering wave movement, seabed formation, and shoreline erosion. Therefore, it is crucial to understand and estimate sediment movement to ensure sustainable coastal management. Understanding littoral drift, the process by which natural forces move sediment along the shoreline, is essential for sustainable coastal development.

Tenebruso et al. discuss the significance of barrier islands and associated backbarrier environments in protecting populations and infrastructure from storm impacts and provide a morphodynamic model to describe their evolution. They also emphasize the need to understand the response of these environments to sea-level rise and anthropogenic effects to inform future management efforts. Additionally, two other contributions focus on wetlands and cohesive sediment processes at the microscale and mesoscale, respectively. Chen et al. (2022) examine erosion processes in cohesive sediments through the development of a new formula for the critical shear stress of the surface erosion of cohesive sediments, which are composed of fractal aggregates and based on the balance analysis of momentums acting on an aggregate in the bed surface. From a medium-term perspective, Jin et al. provide new insights into the dynamics of marshes through field observations from the central Jiang coast and numerical simulations, with the aim of improving predictions of the overall evolution of tidal flats. They contribute to the understanding of the morphological evolution of tidal flats in relation to the salt marsh edge and provide a formidable dataset for testing models of biomorphodynamics. Figure 1 summarizes the insights into coastal processes provided by this Research Topic and their relevance to coastal management practice. Hence, this Research Topic can be summarized by the notion that for any potential coastal management practice, the positive and negative impacts need to be considered in detail before implementation. To confirm these impacts, coastal management managers need to undertake a comprehensive study of the aerial imagery and simulate the impacts through a modeling approach.

Figure 1 Insights into coastal processes provided by this Research Topic and their relevance to coastal management practice.

The final group comprises two contributions focusing on the use of satellite imagery to forecast future flood issues and anticipate changes in the coastline. Cisse et al. assess the vulnerability of the densely populated city of Saint Louis in Senegal to potential coastal flooding by combining satellite-derived data with sea-level observations and reanalyses. The results indicate an increased flood risk due primarily to rising sea levels, underscoring the urgent need for countermeasures to protect communities and infrastructure. The last paper by Ibaceta et al. proposes a new shoreline modeling approach that uses time-varying model parameters and tests it with multidecadal satellite-derived shorelines, thereby reducing the uncertainty associated with the misspecification of physical processes driving shoreline change.

Author contributions

All the authors have contributed to the review of the submitted articles as well as to the writing of this editorial. AEH has made the figure.

This special issue has been promoted within the project CRUNCJ (FEDER-UCA18-107062) founded by the European Union under the 2014-2020 ERDF Operational Programme and by the Department of Economi Transformation, Industry, Knowledge, and Universities of the Regional Government of Andalusia and the the project CRISIS (PID2019-109143RB-I00) funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation and the European Union. AEH greatly supported on this research under the funding by the Malaysian Ministry of Education under the Fundamental Research Grants Scheme (FRGS) [FRGS/1/2022/WAB02/UMT/02/1].

Conflict of interest

The 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.

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.

Kombiadou K., Costas S., Rita Carrasco A., Plomaritis T. A., Ferreira O., Matias A. (2019). Bridging the gap between resilience and geomorphology of complex coastal systems. Earth-Science Rev. 198. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102934

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McGranahan G., Balk D., Anderson B. (2007). The rising tide assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ. Urban. 19 (1), 17–37. doi: 10.1177/0956247807076960

Keywords: coastal evolution, coastal erosion, coastal risks, climate change, anthropogenic impact, coastal management, coastal adaptation

Citation: Benavente J, Ruiz de Alegría-Arzaburu A, Plomaritis TA, Sedrati M and Ariffin EH (2023) Editorial: Coastal environment in a changing world. Front. Mar. Sci. 10:1213689. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1213689

Received: 28 April 2023; Accepted: 04 May 2023; Published: 17 May 2023.

Edited and Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Benavente, Ruiz de Alegría-Arzaburu, Plomaritis, Sedrati and Ariffin. 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: J. Benavente, [email protected]

Disclaimer: 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.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Combining marine ecology and economy to roadmap the integrated coastal management: a systematic literature review.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

2. material and methods, 2.1. training data acquisition, 2.2. topic model construction, 2.3. topic and paper clustering, 2.4. paper network assembly, 2.5. paper network visualization and analyses, 2.6. extended dataset acquisition, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. marine protection as a bridge between ecological and economic issues within the integrated coastal management, 3.2. the isolation of harmful algal blooms: weak perception of the associated economic risks, 3.3. the mature socio-ecologic fingerprint of the management of commercial fishery, 3.4. inclusive economy is markedly peripheral within the coastal management, 3.5. road-mapping the costal management: systems ecology and citizen science as potential integration nodes, 4. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Patterson, M.; Glavovic, B. From frontier economics to an ecological economics of the oceans and coasts. Sustain. Sci. 2013 , 8 , 11–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Folke, C.; Biggs, R.; Norström, A.V.; Reyers, B.; Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2016 , 21 , 41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levin, S. Fragile Dominion ; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Partelow, S. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: Applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2018 , 23 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beatley, T. Blue Urbanism: Exploring Connections between Cities and Oceans ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner, R.K. Integrating natural and socio-economic science in coastal management. J. Mar. Syst. 2000 , 25 , 447–460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, G.; Chou, L.M.; Yang, S.; Wu, J.; Liu, P.; Jin, C. Is integrated coastal management an effective framework for promoting coastal sustainability in China’s coastal cities? Mar. Policy 2015 , 56 , 48–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leslie, H.M.; Basurto, X.; Nenadovic, M.; Sievanen, L.; Cavanaugh, K.C.; Cota-Nieto, J.J.; Erisman, B.E.; Finkbeiner, E.; Hinojosa-Arango, G.; Moreno-Báez, M.; et al. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015 , 112 , 5979–5984. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• 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 2019 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being ; Island press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elmqvist, T.; Wittmer, H.; Ring, I.; Hansju, B.; Sukhdev, P. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010 , 2 , 15–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicin-Sain, B. Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 1993 , 21 , 11–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Long, R.D.; Charles, A.; Stephenson, R.L. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 2015 , 57 , 53–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patterson, M.G.; Glavovic, B.C. Ecological Economics of the Oceans and Coasts ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris, R. The Semantics of Science ; A&C Black: London, UK, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Syed, S.; Borit, M.; Spruit, M. Narrow lenses for capturing the complexity of fisheries: A topic analysis of fisheries science from 1990 to 2016. Fish Fish. 2018 , 19 , 643–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suris-Regueiro, J.C.; Garza-Gil, M.D.; Varela-Lafuente, M.M. Marine economy: A proposal for its definition in the European Union. Mar. Policy 2013 , 42 , 111–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2013. Available online: http://softlibre.unizar.es/manuales/aplicaciones/r/fullrefman.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2019).
• Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009 , 151 , 264–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Csardi, G.; Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Syst. 2006 , 1695 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastian, M.; Heymann, S.; Jacomy, M. Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. ICWSM 2009 , 8 , 361–362. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fruchterman, T.M.J.; Reingold, E.M. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw. Pract. Exp. 1991 , 21 , 1129–1164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jacomy, M.; Venturini, T.; Heymann, S.; Bastian, M. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e98679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blondel, V.D.; Guillaume, J.-L.; Lambiotte, R.; Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2008 , 2008 , P10008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Barrat, A.; Barthélemy, M.; Pastor-Satorras, R.; Vespignani, A. The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004 , 16 , 3747–3752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dale, P.; Sporne, I.; Knight, J.; Sheaves, M.; Eslami-Andergoli, L.; Dwyer, P. A conceptual model to improve links between science, policy and practice in coastal management. Mar. Policy 2019 , 103 , 42–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Limburg, K.E.; Hughes, R.M.; Jackson, D.C.; Czech, B. Human population increase, economic growth, and fish conservation: Collision course or savvy stewardship? Fisheries 2011 , 36 , 27–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koschinsky, A.; Heinrich, L.; Boehnke, K.; Cohrs, J.C.; Markus, T.; Shani, M.; Singh, P.; Smith Stegen, K.; Werner, W. Deep-sea mining: Interdisciplinary research on potential environmental, legal, economic, and societal implications. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2018 , 14 , 672–691. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heyman, W.D.; Granados-Dieseldorff, P. The voice of the fishermen of the Gulf of Honduras: Improving regional fisheries management through fisher participation. Fish. Res. 2012 , 125–126 , 129–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Griffith, D.R. The ecological implications of individual fishing quotas and harvest cooperatives. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008 , 6 , 191–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Voss, R.; Quaas, M.F.; Schmidt, J.O.; Tahvonen, O.; Lindegren, M.; Möllmann, C. Assessing social-ecological trade-offs to advance ecosystem-based fisheries management. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e107811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Calvo-Ugarteburu, G.; Raemaekers, S.; Halling, C. Rehabilitating mussel beds in Coffee Bay, South Africa: Towards fostering cooperative small-scale fisheries governance and enabling community upliftment. Ambio 2017 , 46 , 214–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McClanahan, T.R.; Castilla, J.C.; White, A.T.; Defeo, O. Healing small-scale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2009 , 19 , 33–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Himes-Cornell, A.; Hoelting, K. Resilience strategies in the face of short- and long-term change: Out-migration and fisheries regulation in Alaskan fishing communities. Ecol. Soc. 2015 , 20 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raycraft, J. Marine protected areas and spatial fetishism: A viewpoint on destructive fishing in coastal Tanzania. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018 , 133 , 478–480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McClenachan, L.; Lovell, S.; Keaveney, C. Social benefits of restoring historical ecosystems and fisheries: Alewives in Maine. Ecol. Soc. 2015 , 20 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Angermeier, P.L. The role of fish biologists in helping society build ecological sustainability. Fisheries 2007 , 32 , 9–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edwards, R.; Evans, A. The challenges of marine spatial planning in the Arctic: Results from the ACCESS programme. Ambio 2017 , 46 , 486–496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bennett, N.J.; Dearden, P.; Murray, G.; Kadfak, A. The capacity to adapt?: Communities in a changing climate, environment, and economy on the northern Andaman coast of Thailand. Ecol. Soc. 2014 , 19 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Y.F.; Cui, S.H.; Ouyang, Z.Y. Integrated ecological assessment as the basis for management of a coastal urban protected area: A case study of Xiamen, China. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2012 , 15 , 389–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, S.M.; Birchenough, A.C. Community-based management of the environment: Lessons from the past and options for the future. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2001 , 11 , 137–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fouqueray, T.; Trommetter, M.; Frascaria-Lacoste, N. Managed retreat of settlements and infrastructures: ecological restoration as an opportunity to overcome maladaptive coastal development in France. Restor. Ecol. 2018 , 26 , 806–812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vince, J.; Hardesty, B.D. Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: From local to global governance. Restor. Ecol. 2017 , 25 , 123–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rogers, S.I.; Tasker, M.L.; Earll, R.; Gubbay, S. Ecosystem objectives to support the UK vision for the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007 , 54 , 128–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.H.; Wang, Y.C.; Song, M.L. Construction and analogue simulation of TERE model for measuring marine bearing capacity in Qingdao. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 167 , 1303–1313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ke, L.; Wang, Q.; Gai, M.; Zhou, H. Assessing seawater quality with a variable fuzzy recognition model. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2014 , 32 , 645–655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reiblich, J.; Hartge, E.; Wedding, L.M.; Killian, S.; Verutes, G.M. Bridging climate science, law, and policy to advance coastal adaptation planning. Mar. Policy 2019 , 104 , 125–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pittman, S.J.; Rodwell, L.D.; Shellock, R.J.; Williams, M.; Attrill, M.J.; Bedford, J.; Curry, K.; Fletcher, S.; Gall, S.C.; Lowther, J.; et al. Marine parks for coastal cities: A concept for enhanced community well-being, prosperity and sustainable city living. Mar. Policy 2019 , 103 , 160–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamikawa, R.; Nagai, S.; Hosoi-Tanabe, S.; Itakura, S.; Yamaguchi, M.; Uchida, Y.; Baba, T.; Sako, Y. Application of real-time PCR assay for detection and quantification of Alexandrium tamarense and Alexandrium catenella cysts from marine sediments. Harmful Algae 2007 , 6 , 413–420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bebianno, M.J. Effects of pollutants in the Ria Formosa Lagoon, Portugal. Sci. Total Environ. 1995 , 171 , 107–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zahran, H.H. Diversity, adaptation and activity of the bacterial flora in saline environments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1997 , 25 , 211–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, Y.Z.; Gobler, C.J. The green macroalga, Ulva lactuca , inhibits the growth of seven common harmful algal bloom species via allelopathy. Harmful Algae 2011 , 10 , 480–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, K.L.; Mikulski, C.M.; Barnhorst, A.; Doucette, G.J. Comparative analysis of bacterioplankton assemblages from Karenia brevis bloom and nonbloom water on the west Florida shelf (Gulf of Mexico, USA) using 16S rRNA gene clone libraries. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010 , 73 , 468–485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kubanek, J.; Hicks, M.K.; Naar, J.; Villareal, T.A. Does the red tide dinoflagellate Karenia brevis use allelopathy to outcompete other phytoplankton? Limnol. Oceanogr. 2005 , 50 , 883–895. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hardison, D.R.; Sunda, W.G.; Shea, D.; Litaker, R.W. Increased toxicity of Karenia brevis during phosphate limited growth: Ecological and evolutionary implications. PLoS ONE 2013 , 8 , e58545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McQuatters-Gollop, A.; Johns, D.G.; Bresnan, E.; Skinner, J.; Rombouts, I.; Stern, R.; Aubert, A.; Johansen, M.; Bedford, J.; Knights, A. From microscope to management: The critical value of plankton taxonomy to marine policy and biodiversity conservation. Mar. Policy 2017 , 83 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tweddle, J.F.; Gubbins, M.; Scott, B.E. Should phytoplankton be a key consideration for marine management? Mar. Policy 2018 , 97 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodríguez Rodríguez, G.; Villasante, S.; do Carme García-Negro, M. Are red tides affecting economically the commercialization of the Galician (NW Spain) mussel farming? Mar. Policy 2011 , 35 , 252–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monkman, G.G.; Kaiser, M.J.; Hyder, K. Heterogeneous public and local knowledge provides a qualitative indicator of coastal use by marine recreational fishers. J. Environ. Manag. 2018 , 228 , 495–505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mazzocchin, S.; Cipriano, S. The fishing economy in ancient times: Goods and amphorae for the Adriatic trade. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2018 , 21 , 17–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meltzer, L.; Blinick, N.S.; Fleishman, A.B. Management implications of the biodiversity and socio-economic impacts of shrimp trawler by-catch in Bahía de Kino, Sonora, México. PLoS ONE 2012 , 7 , e35609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Babali, N.; Kacher, M.; Belhabib, D.; Louanchi, F.; Pauly, D. Recreational fisheries economics between illusion and reality: The case of Algeria. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0201602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Hunter, M. Assessing the green sea urchin ( Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis ) stock in Maine, USA. Fish. Res. 2003 , 60 , 527–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bellquist, L.F.; Graham, J.B.; Barker, A.; Ho, J.; Semmens, B.X. Long-term dynamics in “trophy” sizes of pelagic and coastal pelagic fishes among California recreational fisheries (1966–2013). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2016 , 145 , 977–989. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stage, J.; Kirchner, C.H. An economic comparison of the commercial and recreational linefisheries in Namibia. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2005 , 27 , 577–584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kasapoglu, N.; Duzgunes, E. The common problem in the Black Sea fisheries: By-catch and its effects on the fisheries economy. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2017 , 17 , 387–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rao, G.S.; Sathianandan, T.V.; Kuriakose, S.; Mini, K.G.; Najmudeen, T.M.; Jayasankar, J.; Mathew, W.T. Demographic and socio-economic changes in the coastal fishing community of India. Indian J. Fish. 2016 , 63 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Navodaru, I.; Staras, M.; Cernisencu, I. The challenge of sustainable use of the Danube delta fisheries, Romania. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2001 , 8 , 323–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belhabib, D.; Koutob, V.; Sall, A.; Lam, V.W.Y.; Pauly, D. Fisheries catch misreporting and its implications: The case of Senegal. Fish. Res. 2014 , 151 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clua, E.; Buray, N.; Legendre, P.; Mourier, J.; Planes, S. Business partner or simple catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2011 , 62 , 764–770. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Stévant, P.; Rebours, C.; Chapman, A. Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: Recent industrial developments and future perspectives. Aquac. Int. 2017 , 25 , 1373–1390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shah, M.R.; Lutzu, G.A.; Alam, A.; Sarker, P.; Kabir Chowdhury, M.A.; Parsaeimehr, A.; Liang, Y.; Daroch, M. Microalgae in aquafeeds for a sustainable aquaculture industry. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018 , 30 , 197–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vianna, G.M.S.; Meekan, M.G.; Rogers, A.A.; Kragt, M.E.; Alin, J.M.; Zimmerhackel, J.S. Shark-diving tourism as a financing mechanism for shark conservation strategies in Malaysia. Mar. Policy 2018 , 94 , 220–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sutcliffe, S.R.; Barnes, M.L. The role of shark ecotourism in conservation behaviour: Evidence from Hawaii. Mar. Policy 2018 , 97 , 27–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zimmerhackel, J.S.; Kragt, M.E.; Rogers, A.A.; Ali, K.; Meekan, M.G. Evidence of increased economic benefits from shark-diving tourism in the Maldives. Mar. Policy 2019 , 100 , 21–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoopetch, C.; Nimsai, S. Science mapping the knowledge base on sustainable tourism development, 1990–2018. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 3631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rountos, K.J.; Peterson, B.J.; Karakassis, I. Indirect effects of fish cage aquaculture on shallow Posidonia oceanica seagrass patches in coastal greek waters. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2012 , 2 , 105–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dumbauld, B.R.; McCoy, L.M. Effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass Zostera marina at the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA). Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2015 , 7 , 29–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Odum, H.T. Systems Ecology: An Introduction ; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vann-Sander, S.; Clifton, J.; Harvey, E. Can citizen science work? Perceptions of the role and utility of citizen science in a marine policy and management context. Mar. Policy 2016 , 72 , 82–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hyder, K.; Townhill, B.; Anderson, L.G.; Delany, J.; Pinnegar, J.K. Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Mar. Policy 2015 , 59 , 112–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miloslavich, P.; Bax, N.J.; Simmons, S.E.; Klein, E.; Appeltans, W.; Aburto-Oropeza, O.; Andersen Garcia, M.; Batten, S.D.; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.; Checkley, D.M.; et al. Essential ocean variables for global sustained observations of biodiversity and ecosystem changes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018 , 24 , 2416–2433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Alelio, D.; Eveillard, D.; Coles, V.J.; Caputi, L.; Ribera d’Alcalà, M.; Iudicone, D. Modelling the complexity of plankton communities exploiting omics potential: From present challenges to an integrative pipeline. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 2019 , 19 , 68–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hughes, B.B.; Beas-Luna, R.; Barner, A.K.; Brewitt, K.; Brumbaugh, D.R.; Cerny-Chipman, E.B.; Close, S.L.; Coblentz, K.E.; De Nesnera, K.L.; Drobnitch, S.T.; et al. Long-Term Studies Contribute Disproportionately to Ecology and Policy. Bioscience 2017 , 67 , 271–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zingone, A.; D’Alelio, D.; Mazzocchi, M.G.; Sarno, D. Time series and beyond: Multifaceted plankton research at a marine Mediterranean LTER site. Nat. Conserv. 2019 , 310 , 273–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cianelli, D.; D’Alelio, D.; Uttieri, M.; Sarno, D.; Zingone, A.; Zambianchi, E.; Ribera d’Alcalà, M. Disentangling physical and biological drivers of phytoplankton dynamics in a coastal system. Sci. Rep. 2017 , 7 , 15868. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruggiero, M.V.; D’Alelio, D.; Ferrante, M.I.; Santoro, M.; Vitale, L.; Procaccini, G.; Montresor, M. Clonal expansion behind a marine diatom bloom. ISME J. 2018 , 12 , 463–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Alelio, D.; Libralato, S.; Wyatt, T.; Ribera d’Alcalà, M. Ecological-network models link diversity, structure and function in the plankton food-web. Sci. Rep. 2016 , 6 , 21806. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Byron, C.; Bengtson, D.; Costa-Pierce, B.; Calanni, J. Integrating science into management: Ecological carrying capacity of bivalve shellfish aquaculture. Mar. Policy 2011 , 35 , 363–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siano, R.; Chapelle, A.; Antoine, V.; Michel-Guillou, E.; Rigaut-Jalabert, F.; Guillou, L.; Hégaret, H.; Leynaert, A.; Curd, A. Citizen participation in monitoring phytoplankton seawater discolorations. Mar. Policy 2018 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Franzese, P.P.; Russo, G.F.; Ulgiati, S. Modelling the interplay of environment, economy and resources in Marine Protected Areas. A case study in Southern Italy. Ecol. Quest. 2008 , 10 , 91–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tulloch, A.I.T.; Possingham, H.P.; Joseph, L.N.; Szabo, J.; Martin, T.G. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol. Conserv. 2013 , 165 , 128–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Delaney, D.G.; Sperling, C.D.; Adams, C.S.; Leung, B. Marine invasive species: Validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 2008 , 10 , 117–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eikeset, A.M.; Mazzarella, A.B.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Klinger, D.H.; Levin, S.A.; Rovenskaya, E.; Stenseth, N.C. What is blue growth? The semantics of “Sustainable Development” of marine environments. Mar. Policy 2018 , 87 , 177–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alvisi, F.; D’Alelio, D. Present and future of aquatic sciences: The perspective of AIOL scientific community for a priority roadmap over the next five years. Adv. Oceanogr. Limnol. 2018 , 9 , 19–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xavier, L.Y.; Jacobi, P.R.; Turra, A. On the advantages of working together: Social Learning and knowledge integration in the management of marine areas. Mar. Policy 2018 , 88 , 139–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battaglia, P.; Romeo, T.; Consoli, P.; Scotti, G.; Andaloro, F. Characterization of the artisanal fishery and its socio-economic aspects in the central Mediterranean Sea (Aeolian Islands, Italy). Fish. Res. 2010 , 102 , 87–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Alelio, D. The Mesothalassia Bike-Tour: (Re)discovering water by riding with scientists. Limnol. Oceanogr. Bull. 2016 , 25 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Tompkins, E.L. The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 2006 , 10 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbesgaard, M. Blue growth: Savior or ocean grabbing? J. Peasant Stud. 2018 , 45 , 130–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, M.D.; Lynham, J.; Sanchirico, J.N.; Wilson, J.A. Political economy of marine reserves: Understanding the role of opportunity costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010 , 107 , 18300–18305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• L’Astorina, A.; Bergami, C.; D’Alelio, D.; Dattolo, E.; Pugnetti, A. What is at stake for scientists when communicating ecology? Insight from the informal communication initiative “Cammini LTER”. Vis. Sustain. 2018 , 19–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Hay Mele, B.; Russo, L.; D’Alelio, D. Combining Marine Ecology and Economy to Roadmap the Integrated Coastal Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 4393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164393

Hay Mele B, Russo L, D’Alelio D. Combining Marine Ecology and Economy to Roadmap the Integrated Coastal Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability . 2019; 11(16):4393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164393

Hay Mele, Bruno, Luca Russo, and Domenico D’Alelio. 2019. "Combining Marine Ecology and Economy to Roadmap the Integrated Coastal Management: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 11, no. 16: 4393. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164393

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 304 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Research topics

Prof. Dr. Kalev Sepp Estonian University of Life Sciences suggests research topics:

• Ecosystem service provision in coastal wetlands: implications of global change.
• Ecosystem service provision in coastal ecosystems in Vietnam: implications of global change.
• Ecosystem service provision in coastal ecosystems in Malaysia implications of global change.
• Data integration and participatory process in developing integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).
• Premises of marine spatial planning. Current use of marine areas, future prospects, and knowledge base concerning marine areas.
• Planning at the edge: Integrating across the land-sea divide.
• Sustainable Coastal tourism – an integrated planning and management approach.

Dr Vincenzo Maccarrone Italian National Research Council Institute for Marine Biological Resources and Biotechnology (CNR-IRBIM) Lab on Integrated sustainable and resilient management of coastal zone

  Quintuple helix approach in integrated coastal zona management

• Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets
• Increase the economic benefits to Small Island from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
• Sustainability management of protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience.

Dr Pierluigi Strafella Italian National Research Council Institute for Marine Biological Resources and Biotechnology (CNR-IRBIM)

• Biodiversity, spatial distribution and persistence of mega- and macro-zoobenthic assemblages along the Vietnamese coasts.
• Marine Vietnamese megafauna assessment through Bycatch: monitoring biodiversity, community composition and ecosystem structure.
• Microplastics occurrence and composition in the trophic chain of the Vietnamese sea, from the sediment to the seafood.
• Assessment of seabed and floating litter along the Vietnamese coasts: identification of source and eventual relationships with the relevant socioeconomic activities in the area

Dr Marco Torri

Italian National Research – Institute for the study of anthropic impact and sustainability in the marine environmentn (CNR-IAS)

• Monitoring of biological resources: early life stages and management implications.

Dr Francesco Filiciotto

Italian National Research –  Institute of Polar Science (CNR-ISP) Bio Sound Ecology Lab

• Ecological and Physiological aspects of marine animals related to acoustic pollution;
• Sea soundscape for the assessment of marine habitat.

Prof. Doctor Nguyen Ky Phung Potential areas for PhD supervision:

• Monitoring in Hydrology and Environment
• Hydrodynamic in river estuary and sea
• Modeling sediment transportation in river and coastal area (waves, tides, distribution of salt)
• Modeling and forecasting the distribution of pollution
• Climate change
• Environment

PhD Le Thi Kim Thoa Potential areas for PhD supervision:

• Application of remote sensing and GIS in natural resources and environment management
• Impacts of climate change on livelihoods, socio-economy, and environment in coastal areas and islands. Vulnerability assessment of climate change impacts.
• Climate change and sea level rise
• Small islands
• Economic Geography and Regional Development

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thi Van Ha Potential areas for PhD supervision:

• water pollution management,
• environmental planning,
• smart City,
• ecology and environment,
• industrial ecology,
• environmental quality management,
• environmental management,
• environmental impact assessment and risk assessment,
• environmental economic,
• environmental project management,
• environmental safeguard policy,
• hazardous waste and solid waste management, environmental data analysis and statistical engineering,
• climate changes,
• energy projects (hydropower, thermal power, renewable energy and biomass energy),
• financial engineering,
• smart and sustainable Cities.
• Climate change resilience for urban,
• solar rooftop,
• solar power plant master plan,
• applied sustainability,
• strategy environmental assessment.

Dr. Hoang Xuan Ben Potential areas for PhD supervision:

• Marine conservation;
• Taxonomy of soft coral

Assoc. Prof. Bui Hong Long Potential areas for PhD supervision:

• Hydrodynamic systems;
• erosion-deposition processes,
• marine-river interaction,
• Climate changes impacts on hydrodynamic systems

Dr. Huynh Minh Sang Potential areas for PhD supervision:

• Mariculture,
• reproduction of aquatic species,
• carrying capacity

Prof. Daniele La Rosa, phd:

Research Topics

• Managing of conflicting land-uses in coastal areas
• Ecosystem services trade-offs in coastal areas
• Planning and design of Nature-based solutions to address issues of coastal areas
• Sustainable Urban development to ensure nature conservation and ecosystem services

Prof. Piero Scandura, phd

• specifically developed numerical models (DNS, RANS),
• experimental approaches in both small and large scale facilities (wave basin at the University of Catania; large scale CIEM wave flume at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia – Spain; Oscillatory flow tunnel at the University of Aberdeen (UK),
• theoretical approaches.
•  planning and policies for coastal protection

Possible research topics for a PhD tutoring

• Coastal hydrodynamics, wave breaking.
• Interaction between waves and vegetation.
• Interaction of waves with costal structures.
• Sediment transport in river and in the nearshore region.
• Renewable energy (wave energy).

Prof. Dr. MOHD FADZIL MOHD AKHIR

• Regional upwelling dynamics and seasonality changes
• Coastal current circulation dynamics using numerical modeling
• Impact of climate change on coastal ocean characteristics and dynamics

VIETNAM MARITIME UNIVERSITY

This project has been funded by Erasmus+ CBHE programme of the European Union.

The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

This project No. 610327-EPP-1-2019-1-DE-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP has been funded by Erasmus+ CBHE programme of the European Union.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

Coastal Ecosystems

Characterization of Benthic Habitats on the Pacific Margin: Assessing the Connectivity of Hard Substrates, Seeps and Canyon Communities

Ecosystems We Study: Coastal

Mangrove Science Network

Mangrove Forest Responses to Sea-Level Rise in the Greater Everglades

USGS Everglades Research Office - Florida

Ecosystems We Study: Alaska Bioregions and Arctic

Southwest Florida Fish Slam – Spring 2022

Knowledge Synthesis of Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Science

Ecological Modeling in Support of the Lake Okeechobee Water Management

Mapping Avian Habitat for the Gulf Coast Joint Venture

Across Trophic Level System Simulation (ATLSS) Program for the Greater Everglades

Biological Objectives for the Gulf Coast: Biological Planning Units & Target Species Population Objectives

• Research & Services

Research Topics

Follow your interests to learn about VIMS research and its impacts

Here's a one-stop shop to learn about the impacts of VIMS research. Choose a topic to access related Top Stories, Advisory Service reports, journal articles, theses and dissertations, and a listing of affiliated labs, projects, and centers.

Coastal Resource Management

About half of the United States population lives in coastal counties, which account for only about a quarter of the nation’s total land area, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Coastal areas are becoming the most crowded and developed parts of the nation. With this population growth, more and more pressure will be placed on coastal resources and coastal ecosystems.

Coastal resources are important for a variety of reasons. Coastal wetlands serve as breeding and nursery sites for oceanic species, birds, and other wildlife. Coastal waterways provide opportunities for numerous outdoor recreation activities including wildlife viewing, boating, and fishing. Coastal areas provide numerous economic, ecological, and aesthetic values. Healthy coastal wetlands are an effective way to clean polluted waters and filter out sediments, thereby positively impacting both human health and water resources.

Responsive Management has conducted numerous studies on coastal resource issues. For example, Responsive Management conducted a coastal resource management evaluation for NOAA’s Coastal Services Center, a market inventory and needs assessment for the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve, a Manatee education and outreach assessment, an evaluation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Marine Mammal Stranding Network, and a coastal resource study on behalf of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve.

The Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve assessment was conducted to assess existing programs related to coastal training and to determine current and desired levels of coastal training among decision-makers in Georgia. The assessment was designed to identify any overlaps among various coastal training efforts; the full range of coastal issues that may need to be addressed through training and information but are not currently being adequately addressed; the professional decision-making groups that should be targeted for coastal training, including those not currently being adequately served; and the best strategies, technologies, and formats to educate and inform the decision-making groups, including a prioritization of the groups that most need specific additional information. The study entailed two multi-modal surveys of coastal training decision-makers and organizations and institutions that participate in or offer coastal training. Based on the findings of the market inventory and needs assessment, Responsive Management developed recommendations and strategies for meeting coastal training needs. In general, the findings suggest that overall interest in coastal training is high and that encouraging attendance is a matter of increasing opportunities and facilitating attendance rather than increasing interest.

The coastal resource study conducted on behalf of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve entailed a detailed market analysis and needs assessment of coastal resource decision-makers in New Jersey. The market analysis involved a statewide inventory of existing programs, information, and outreach efforts that currently exist for coastal resource professionals. The needs assessment involved a statewide survey of coastal resource professionals including state legislators, businesses, non-profit organizations, state agencies, universities and grade school teachers to better understand their needs regarding coastal resource information and training opportunities. By comparing the needs of the professionals with the needs fulfilled by existing programs, gaps in coastal outreach and training programs were more clearly identified. Statistical analyses can be performed to assess latent demand for information and training about specific topic areas regarding coastal resources. In New Jersey, Responsive Management’s study discovered several topic areas that should be considered for future programmatic efforts including:

• Habitat issues: fire management, special area management, and urban sprawl;
• Coastal issues: severe weather emergency management, saltwater intrusion, public access, and coastal hazards;
• Water quality issues: wastewater management, septic system issues, and storm water protection and cleanup;
• Education, planning, and regulation issues: public safety, GIS education/outreach, organizational/management skills, and regulations;
• Resource management and other issues: environmental technologies, renewable energy, and land trusts and conservation acquisitions, and
• Ocean science topics: climate prediction.

Information like this can help natural resource and outdoor recreation organizations plan coastal resource programs that meet the needs of the coastal resource professional community and ultimately lead to enhanced coastal resource protection and conservation.

In a needs assessment for environmental education in Florida conducted by Responsive Management, coastal resources were among the top five highest priority environmental issues in Florida requiring environmental education efforts. Specific issues related to coastal protection centered on beach preservation and development.

Invasive species are another coastal resource issue affecting natural resource and outdoor recreation organizations. More invasive species are being found in coastal areas, often disrupting the food chain and eliminating native species. According to the World Resources Institute, scientists estimate that on any given day, as many as 3,000 different species are carried in the ballasts of the world’s ocean fleets. In a national aquatic invasive species survey of state agencies, Responsive Management found that all respondents felt that the issue of aquatic invasive species was important, with a majority (57%) indicating that it was very important.

Responsive Management’s experience with projects on coastal resource issues includes workshops on survey research methods for coastal managers, including at NOAA’s Coastal Service Center. Other Responsive Management coastal resource projects include the following:

• Market Inventory and Needs Assessment for the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve (SINERR): This study was conducted for the SINERR to assess existing programs related to coastal training and to determine current and desired levels of coastal training among decision-makers in Georgia. The study entailed two multi-modal surveys of coastal training decision-makers and organizations and institutions that participate in or offer coastal training. The surveys were administered through a combination of e-mail, mail, and telephone questionnaires designed to fully assess the specific needs for coastal training efforts.
• Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve: Market Inventory of Coastal Training in Delaware: This study was conducted for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For this project, Responsive Management completed market analysis of coastal training programs in Delaware to create a statewide inventory of training programs, to identify gaps and overlaps in available training services, and to identify potential partnerships for Coastal Training Program efforts in Delaware. The study was used to guide the formulation of a strategic plan for the future of the Coastal Training Program.
• Implications of the Market Inventory and Needs Assessment of the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve: Responsive Management conducted a follow-up report based on the market inventory and needs assessment of the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve that discusses the implications of the research and provides recommendations regarding the direction of coastal training for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
• Coastal Training Needs Assessment and Market Inventory for the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve: For this project, Responsive Management completed a needs assessment of the coastal training program entailing a survey of coastal decision-makers throughout New Jersey to assess their knowledge, skills, and attitudes, to identify gaps and overlaps in available training services, and to identify topics where decision-makers want/need additional training and educational materials.
• Assessing the Impact of Outreach and Education for the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program: As part of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program’s efforts to understand the outcomes of these strategies as well as to improve outreach and education to target audiences in the Barnegat Bay region, Responsive Management partnered with Rutgers University to conduct a qualitative and quantitative evaluation to determine the best ways to reach target audiences and the most effective messages that resonate with the public. The researchers conducted two focus groups with target audiences in the Barnegat Bay region (treatment group) and one with residents in another Bay area that were not exposed to outreach and communications (control group).
• A Programmatic Evaluation of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) in the United States and Canada: Responsive Management completed a programmatic evaluation of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act in the United States and Canada during its first 10 years of implementation. The study entailed personal interviews, focus groups, site visits, and a telephone survey. The report summarizes the major findings and implications of the overall evaluation.
• Opinions of Maryland Residents Regarding the Chesapeake Bay and Bay Restoration Efforts: This study was conducted to determine the opinions of Maryland residents regarding the Chesapeake Bay and its resources. More specifically, a telephone survey of Maryland residents assessed participation and interest in Chesapeake Bay-related activities, residents’ ratings of the health and quality of Bay resources, perceived threats to the Bay, and public opinion on and support for Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.
• Regional Residents’ Opinions on Management Issues at Point Reyes National Seashore: Responsive Management completed a telephone survey of regional residents to provide information and assistance to Point Reyes National Seashore in the revision of the General Management Plan, Wilderness Management Plan, and Exotic Deer Management Plan. The survey assessed public knowledge of Point Reyes National Seashore, the main reasons the public values having a National Park, public land use at the National Seashore, and general participation in outdoor activities at Point Reyes National Seashore.
• An Evaluation of the NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Resource Management Surveys: This project involved a comprehensive evaluation of the Coastal Services Center’s coastal resource management survey. The study involved a review of the survey’s purpose, the survey development process, the questions used to assess customer’s needs and capabilities, the mechanism used to report the results internally and externally, as well as how the survey findings are incorporated into the Center’s strategic planning and program development.
• Coastal Resource Management Customer Survey: Responsive Management was contracted by the NOAA Coastal Services Center to conduct its Coastal Resource Management Customer Survey. This was the fourth in a series of such surveys. The survey discussed was Web-based and was conducted to determine opinions on and interaction with the CSC among coastal resource stakeholders. The survey was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management and the CSC, partly based on the previously administered surveys.
• A Programmatic Evaluation of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program Networks: This study was conducted for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program in four of the major Stranding Network regions: the Northeast Region, the Southeast Region, the Southwest Region, and the Northwest Region. The research examined the Stranding Network’s current performance, its organizational structure, overarching goals and objectives, and future needs. The study entailed a comprehensive survey of Stranding Network participants and program volunteers throughout the four major regions.
• Constituent Awareness of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP): Responsive Management completed a regional study to assess constituents’ awareness of and attitudes toward the ACCSP and its related programs. This project involved a telephone survey of domestic seafood dealers, commercial saltwater fishermen, charter boat operators, and recreational saltwater anglers in three regions: the Mid-Atlantic region, New England, and the South Atlantic region. For the project, Responsive Management designed four related telephone surveys, tailored to each respondent group to determine overall awareness of and opinions on the ACCSP and related programs among its constituents, their sources of information about the programs, their opinions on the programs, their participation in associations and clubs, and the types of information that would be of interest and use to them.
• California Tourism and Fishing Heritage Assessment: This study entailed a multi-modal survey administered to tourists, tourism professionals, and community leaders in three California waterfront communities: Crescent City, Monterey, and Morro Bay. The assessment was designed to determine the importance of the communities’ fishing heritage; the public’s ability to access working waterfronts; and the public’s opportunity to buy and consume fresh, local seafood and how these features affect the greater tourism economies.
• California Residents’ Opinions on and Attitudes Toward Coastal Fisheries and Their Management: This study was conducted for the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries to determine Californians’ opinions on and attitudes toward commercial and recreational fishing in coastal areas of California, the ecological health of California’s coastal fisheries and wildlife, and fisheries and wildlife management along the coast. The study entailed a telephone survey of California residents 18 years old and older.
• Compendium of Three Reports Regarding the Monterey Bay Area Fisheries: Responsive Management interviewed more than 2,200 people in five separate surveys between 2007 and 2009, asking them hundreds of questions regarding issues pertaining to the coastal communities of California. This report details the results of these studies, including public attitudes toward the management of California’s coastal areas, wildlife, and fisheries.
• National Marine Sanctuaries Logo Assessment Study: Responsive Management completed this market assessment of the value of the National Marine Sanctuaries’ adopted logo for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The assessment was conducted using a combination of mail and telephone surveys.
• Panama City Residents’, Visitors’, and Business Operators’ Attitudes Toward the Illegal Feeding and Harassment of Wild Dolphins: This study was conducted for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to measure public awareness and knowledge of dolphin conservation, assess participation in marine recreational activities and interactions with wild dolphins, and determine the effectiveness of NMFS-supported public outreach efforts. The study entailed surveys of three groups in Panama City, Florida: residents, visitors to the area, and local water-based and dolphin-related commercial businesses.
• Corpus Christi Residents’, Visitors’, and Business Operators’ Attitudes Toward the Illegal Feeding and Harassment of Wild Dolphins. This study was conducted for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service to measure public awareness and knowledge of dolphin conservation, assess participation in marine recreational activities and interactions with wild dolphins, and determine the effectiveness of NMFS-supported public outreach efforts in Corpus Christi, Texas. A similar study was conducted in Panama City, Florida. As was done in the Panama City study, this project entailed surveys of three groups in Corpus Christi: residents, visitors to the area, and local water-based and dolphin-related commercial businesses.
• Delaware Residents’ Attitudes Toward and Behaviors that Affect Water Quality. This study was conducted for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to assess Delaware residents’ attitudes toward the environment and water quality issues, as well as behaviors that affect water quality. The study entailed five focus groups conducted in Middletown, Wilmington, Dover, Lewes, and Delmar and a statewide telephone survey of Delaware residents.
• Manatee Education and Outreach Assessment. Responsive Management conducted this study to assess education and outreach efforts regarding the endangered manatee in Florida. Conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Manatee Recovery Implementation Team Education Working Group, the assessment was designed to identify overlaps among the various education and outreach efforts; determine the full range of issues that needed to be addressed through education and outreach, as well as the target audiences that should be served by the Education Working Group; and to identify the best strategies and technologies for educating and informing target audiences. For this project, two separate surveys were administered: one to Education Working Group members to determine priorities with regard to manatee education and outreach, and another to education providers in order to inventory available education and outreach materials.
• Marketing and Communication Strategies for the USFWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office. The purpose of this study was to develop marketing and communication strategies for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office (CBFO). The study resulted in recommendations to increase awareness of the organization and assisted the CBFO in differentiating itself from the numerous other federal, state, and local organizations.