sustainable coastal management case study

• 0 Shopping Cart

Lyme Regis Case Study of Coastal Management

A Coastal Management Scheme in the UK

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

What were the reasons for coastal management in Lyme Regis?

The coast at Lyme Regis experiences erosion . Much of the town has been constructed on unstable cliffs, which experience some of the highest erosion rates in Europe due to high energy waves from the southwest and its geology. The geology of Lyme Regis is a mixture of limestone, resistant to erosion, and clay, vulnerable to erosion. The clay lies on limestone, so as the clay erodes, the cliffs are vulnerable to landslides. Therefore, houses, roads and farmland are at risk of cliff landslides.

In addition, tourist numbers were down due to the lack of beaches caused by erosion.

What was the coastal management strategy at Lyme Regis?

The local government developed a plan to manage the coastline at Lyme Regis called the Lyme Regis Environmental Improvement Scheme. During the planning process, the local government consulted different interest groups, including residents, fishermen, and environmentalists, to reduce conflicts.

Several strategies have been used to protect Lyme Regis from coastal erosion . These are explored below.

Coastal management strategies used at Lyme Regis

The harbour is dredged annually to improve navigation, and the dredged sand is used to replenish the beach . This provides additional protection from coastal processes and supports the tourist industry.

1990 - 1995

Phase 1 involved the construction of a sea wall and promenade to the east of the mouth of the River Lim. An emergency cliff stabilisation project was completed during the winter of 2003-2004. It involved using large nails to hold the rocks together, as well as improving drainage and reprofiling the slope of the beach.

£22 million was spent on extensive improvements to the seafront, including:

• the construction of new seawalls and promenades;
• the creation of a wide sand and shingle beach designed to absorb wave energy; and
• the extension of rock armour to protect the harbour wall (The Cobb) and to the eastern end of the seafront to absorb wave energy and retain the new beach.

Not undertaken

Phase 3 of the project, a plan to prevent landslips and coastal erosion to the west of The Cobb, was cancelled as the costs outweighed the benefits.

Phase 4 involved the construction of defences to protect the coast to the east of the town. The £20 million project involved building a 390m sea wall in front of the existing wall. 480 homes were protected as cliffs were stabilised by nailing, piling and improving drainage.

Nails, up to 19 metres long, have been installed into the cliffs. Once installed, the nails were covered with a 60 to 120-year design life mesh.

What are the effects of coastal management at Lyme Regis?

Positive impacts

There has been a significant improvement in the attractiveness of the seafront and beach due to nourishment and the wide promenade. This has led to increased visitor numbers, and seafront businesses are thriving.

The new defences have withstood recent stormy winters.

The harbour is better protected, benefiting the fishing industry and boat owners.

Negative impacts

Conflicts have increased as visitor numbers have increased. For example, local people have experienced increased traffic congestion and litter due to increased tourism .

Some feel the new coastal defences have spoilt the natural coastal landscape .

The new defences may interfere with natural coastal processes affecting neighbouring stretches of coastline, causing conflicts elsewhere.

Stabilising cliffs that prevent landslides will reduce the number of fossils found in the area.

Check your understanding

Premium Resources

Please support internet geography.

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

Related Topics

Use the images below to explore related GeoTopics.

Topic Home

Next topic page, share this:.

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

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

Search Internet Geography

Top posts and pages.

Latest Blog Entries

Pin It on Pinterest

• Click to share
• Print Friendly

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

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

Integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy

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

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

23k Accesses

100 Citations

136 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Balancing protection and production in ocean conservation

A transition to sustainable ocean governance

Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate

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

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

Centre for the Ocean and the Arctic.

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

Opportunities for sustainable ocean management

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

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

Norwegian Polar Institute.

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

Norwegian Oil and Gas Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrated ocean management in practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harnessing knowledge

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

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

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

Establishing partnerships between public and private sectors

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

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

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

Strengthening stakeholder engagement

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

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

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

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

Improving capacity building

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

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

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

Implementing regulatory frameworks

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

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

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

Developing adaptive solutions

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Leanne Fernandes

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

Authors and Affiliations

Centre for the Ocean and the Arctic, Tromsø, Norway

Jan-Gunnar Winther & Therese Rist

Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway

Jan-Gunnar Winther

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

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

Alf Håkon Hoel

Institute of Marine Research, Tromsø, Norway

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

Ocean Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA

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

Karyn Morrissey

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

Marie Antonette Juinio-Meñez

International Union for Conservation of Nature, Suva, Fiji

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

Sebastian Unger

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

Fabio Rubio Scarano

Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

• Patrick Halpin

Ocean Conservancy Consultant, Washington, DC, USA

Sandra Whitehouse

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Gunnar Winther .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 06 December 2019

Accepted : 26 June 2020

Published : 17 August 2020

Issue Date : November 2020

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Satellite mapping reveals extensive industrial activity at sea.

• Fernando S. Paolo
• David Kroodsma

Nature (2024)

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

• Elizabeth J. Mansfield
• Fiorenza Micheli
• Rosamond Naylor

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024)

Principles for transformative ocean governance

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

Nature Sustainability (2023)

Thirteen steps to transformation

• David O. Obura

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

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

Nature Communications (2023)

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

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

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

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

1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 1 . Overview map of project locations.

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

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

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

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

3 Case Study Descriptions

3.1 living breakwaters—new york harbor.

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

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

3.1.1 Innovative Coastal Design

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

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

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

3.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement

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

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

3.1.3 Funding and Implementation

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

3.1.4 Ecosystem Services and Connectivity

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

3.2 Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study—Gulf of Mexico

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

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

3.2.1 Innovative Coastal Design

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

3.2.2 Stakeholder Engagement

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

3.2.3 Funding and Implementation

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

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

3.2.4 Ecosystem Services and Connectivity

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

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

3.3 South Bay Salt Ponds—San Francisco Bay, California

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

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

3.3.1 Innovative Coastal Design

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

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

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

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

3.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement

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

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

3.3.3 Funding and Implementation

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

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

3.3.4 Ecosystem Services and Connectivity

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

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

4 Discussion of Emerging Themes

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

4.1 Areas of Progress

4.1.1 moving beyond single-benefit projects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.3 Managing Uncertainty in Project Performance

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

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

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

4.1.4 Expanding Beyond the Project Scale to a Regional Perspective

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

4.2 Remaining Challenges

4.2.1 navigating permitting and policy barriers.

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

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

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

4.2.2 Funding

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

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

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

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

4.2.3 Defining and Assessing Project Costs and Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

Author Contributions

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

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

Conflict of Interest

JM is employed by Arcadis.

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

Publisher’s Note

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by:

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

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

This article is part of the Research Topic

Natural and Nature-Based Features for Flood Risk Management

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, sustainable management of coastal critical infrastructure: case study of multi-purpose cyclone shelters in south asia.

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

ISSN : 1759-5908

Article publication date: 25 March 2022

Issue publication date: 20 May 2022

To minimize risk of coastal communities arising from cyclones, several risk mitigation initiatives have been taken in countries. Cyclone shelters have proven to be an important critical infrastructure in saving lives from cyclones. A large number of coastal critical infrastructure in the form of multi-purpose cyclone shelters (MPCS) are built to provide safe shelter during disasters. Often observed, such critical infrastructures are non-operational during the normal period, which makes them difficult to use during any disaster. Efforts have been made to keep these infrastructures in working condition. This research paper aims to bring together various management practices adopted for the MPCS in the South-Asian region with a focus on Bangladesh, and India. It also suggests ways to improve these practices for sustainable management of the MPCS.

Design/methodology/approach

India and Bangladesh are the most vulnerable countries in the South Asian region. As per the Global Climate Index, India and Bangladesh come in the list of “in extreme risk” countries in the world and are vulnerable to several natural hazards, especially climate-induced hydrometeorological hazards. India has a vast coastline and out of 7,516 km of coastline, a large extent, i.e. 5,700 km is prone to cyclones and that keeps 40% of the population vulnerable living within 100 km of the coastline. On the other hand, Bangladesh has a coastline of 580 km, which is equally vulnerable to tropical cyclones. Safeguarding communities from impending coastal risk through coastal cyclone shelters are of prime concern. This paper uses a qualitative approach to analyze secondary data, and literature in the field of critical infrastructure, sustainability, cyclone shelter, and management practice for cyclone shelters.

To provide sustainability and community ownership of the MPCS, various service plans are adopted in different countries. This paper provides insights on service and sustainability efforts made for the proper functioning of the MPCS in India and Bangladesh. It also provides insight into the roles played by different institutions involved in maintaining the MPCSs.

Originality/value

The research reiterates understanding of the cyclone shelter management from different geographic locations in the South Asian region. Various gaps identified in shelter management practices are discussed in the paper and key recommendations are proposed for better management of cyclone shelters.

• Multi-purpose cyclone shelter
• Critical infrastructure
• Sustainable management

Jaiswal, A. , Kumar, A. , Pal, I. , Raisinghani, B. and Bhoraniya, T.H. (2022), "Sustainable management of coastal critical infrastructure: case study of multi-purpose cyclone shelters in South Asia", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment , Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 304-326. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-08-2021-0115

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Advertisement

Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe using an indicator based tool

• Open access
• Published: 07 March 2018
• Volume 22 , pages 549–570, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Donalda Karnauskaitė 1 , 2 ,
• Gerald Schernewski 1 , 2 ,
• Johanna Schumacher 2 ,
• Rebecca Grunert 2 &
• Ramūnas Povilanskas 3  

6532 Accesses

17 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 25 April 2018

This article has been updated

Over 350 European Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) ‘best practice’ case studies are documented in the OURCOAST online public database, to ensure that lessons learned from experiences and practices are shared and improve coastal management practices. However, concrete criteria for ‘best practice’ are missing and a critical evaluation of the success of these case studies did not take place. We present an indicator-based tool and methodology that allows assessing the progress towards sustainability of ICZM measures. An indicator-based tool was applied to 18 thematically different coastal case studies using two different methods: a fast screening and an analysis in-depth assessment. Both methods used help to identify strengths and weaknesses of ICZM and their contribution to sustainable development. However, indicator scores were highly affected by evaluators’ background and perception. The tool is user-friendly and easy to apply, it indicates what progress has made towards sustainability and to which extent targets have been met.

Similar content being viewed by others

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and Its Applications

Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Our coastal zones are facing serious problems of habitat destruction, water contamination, coastal erosion and resource depletion also suffer from serious socio-economic and cultural problems such as weakening of the social fabric, marginalization, unemployment and destruction of property by erosion. Given the coast’s critical value and its potential, these problems must be solved (European Parliament and the Council 2002 ). Both Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 identified the need for a sustainable management of the coastal zone. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) seeks to develop an integrated model for sustainable development that is based on finding points of convergence among environmental, socio-economic, cultural and governance factors (Diedrich et al. 2010 ; Maelfait et al. 2006 ). To promote sustainable development of coastal zones, the European Commission adopted the document “Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe” (COM/2000/547) in 2000, as well as, the “Recommendation concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe” (2002/413/EC) in 2002. ICZM is defined as “a continuous process with the general aim of implementing sustainable development in coastal zones through optimal management of human activities in this area to improve the state of the coastal environment and maintain its diversity” (European Commission 1999 ). Until 2010, the European Union (EU) Member States reported their progress in implementing ICZM, and this resulted in a proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management, adopted by the European Commission (EC) in 2013 (European Commission 2013 ). However, these activities can not conceal that policy development and practical implementation of ICZM which is a slow process in Europe.

In order to promote ICZM and to stimulate its practical implementation on local level, the EC created an online database called OURCOAST. Over 350 ICZM best practice case studies are documented, to ensure that lessons learned from experiences and practices are shared and available to improve coastal management practices. However, concrete criteria for “best practice” are missing and an evaluation of the single case studies did not take place. It is commonly observed that success and implementation process of ICZM measures are not evaluated. For example, Pendle ( 2013 ) recommend that key performance indices of sustainability should be developed, included in predictions and thereafter monitored to provide evidence that measures meet economic, social and environmental sustainability goals.

The measurement of the effectiveness of a management system requires performance measures that have easily comparable goals (Maccarrone et al. 2014 ; Ehler 2003 ; Henocque 2003 ). Indicators are commonly used, because they provide a simplified view of complex phenomena, quantify information, and make it comparable. They can also be used to simplify the extent to which the objectives for the management programmes are being achieved (Malfait et al. 2006 ). Many coastal indicator sets have been developed for different purposes (Olsen 2003 , Pickaver et al. 2004 , Breton 2006 , Hoffmann 2009 , Ballinger et al. 2010 ; Cummins and McKenna 2010 ; Azuz-Adeath et al. 2015 ). An example, is the “Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management” published by UNESCO-IOC (Belfiore et al. 2006 ).

The project DEDUCE developed a list of 27 indicators which were simplified and streamlined into 15 coastal sustainability indicators (Gvilava et al. 2015 ; DEDUCE Consortium 2007 ). Project SUSTAIN provided a set of indicators designed to measure sustainable development in coastal areas on a local and regional level (Schernewski et al. 2014 ). Most of the existing guidelines for ICZM underline the importance of indicators to monitor states and developments in coastal zones and to assess performance (Belfiore et al. 2003 ; Hoffmann 2009 ; Gallagher 2010 ; Meiner 2010 ; Burbridge 1997 ; Scottish Executive Central Research Unit 2001 ). However, in practice the indicator systems are hardly applied. The reasons are the lack of a guided stepwise process and lack of supporting tools that enable an easy and relatively fast application process. More important is that many indicator systems are kept general and do not meet the practical demand or the concrete objectives of an application.

A retrospective assessment of ICZM best practice cases not only requires a tailor-made indicator system, but also a separation of two aspects: a) it has to be possible to measure changes in the state of sustainability before and after the measure implementation considering the categories of sustainability (economics, environmental quality and social well-being); b) it has to measure the ICZM process from issue identification, via planning towards implementation. The indicators can be used as supporting tool for System Approach Framework (SAF) evaluations. SAF is a holistic research approach which addresses the general problem of assessing complex systems for conversion to sustainable development. The best available scientific knowledge shall be mobilized to support deliberative decision-making processes aimed at improving the sustainability of coastal systems by implementing suitable ICZM policies (Hopkins et al. 2011 ; Newton 2012 ).

Our objectives are: (1) to present a tailor-made set of indicators suitable for the assessment of ICZM best practice case studies as well as for measuring the quality of the ICZM process and changes in the state of sustainability; (2) to provide a stepwise application methodology and a user-friendly, spread-sheet tool for easy application that builds upon previous approaches; (3) to apply the indicator set to 18 contrasting study sites; (4) to identify strengths and weaknesses of different ICZM case studies; (5) to provide a critical analysis of different application methods by comparing in-depth assessments with a fast screening on 3 German case studies; (6) to analyse the role of different evaluators and their perception, background and required time for applications; and (7) to critically discuss benefits and limitations of our indicator set as well as the consequences of data aggregation in the assessment tool.

Methodology

The stepwise approach for indicator development has been adopted, to cover different coastal themes and consider the coastal interests and concerns at local, regional and national scales. Based on previous projects (DEDUCE, IOC, SUSTAIN, QualityCoast and Progress indicators by Pickaver et al.) we provide a set of indicators that can be applied at different scales of ICZM initiatives or programmes around Europe. The research methodology is divided into five steps (Fig.  1 ):

An indicator set research methodological steps

Development of tailor-made indicators

Step 1: To make use of the already existing initiatives on sustainability and ICZM progress indicators a review of more than 300 indicators has been undertaken. Indicators have been chosen to cover 3 categories of sustainability (environmental quality, economics, social well-being), moreover, additional governance (process) indicators were included to measure the ICZM process. The first screening of indicators showed that some of indicators are the same or similar in the different methodologies. Step 2: 97 indicators were initially selected using thematic and technical criteria. The thematic criteria: (a) indicators are covering the main coastal issues themes based on European Commission OURCOAST database (adaptation to risk, sustainable use of resources, sustainable economic growth), including indicators related to (b) sustainability and (c) ICZM progress. Technical criteria: (d) ability to be scored, (e) data availability and (f) quality of data sets. Step 3: Selected indicators based on thematic and technical criteria were the basis for creating online checklist. The main aim was to check indicators’ suitability to measure changes. This process required an expert consultation. The question to experts on each indicator was: “Is this indicator suitable to measure changes in the state of sustainability before and after implementation of ICZM initiative?” All 97 indicators were included in this list and answers such as ‘no effect’, ‘some effect’, ‘strong effect’ were inserted. Four coastal management experts filled in the online checklist, the results were collected and analysed. It showed that many indicators chosen were too general to reflect single measures and were not suitable to reflect changes. Step 4: The desk-review and discussion with scientist group provided a good overview of which indicators cover various issues of the coastal zone. The discussion of the proposed indicators led to a reduction of the number of indicators and a rewording of their definition. Additionally, some tailor-made indicators covering coastal issues were suggested. They were included in the new indicator set. In total, 45 tailor-made indicators were selected to reflect changes in the state of sustainability. The indicators are the basis of the assessment and scoring tool, implemented in Microsoft Excel.

Indicator-based ICZM best-practice evaluation tool

The tool is divided in 4 categories Fig.  2 : environmental quality, economics, social well-being and governance (process) and it can be used as supporting generalized spreadsheet tool for SAF evaluations.

Indicator-based ICZM best-practice evaluation tool capability to support SAF evaluations based on 4 categories

Indicators of Environmental quality category have been selected to demonstrate the status and changes of sustainable environmental practices. In the tool there are 13 environmental quality indicators which cover many issues of coastal zones such as air, water and soil pollution, coastal erosion, flooding, climate change, biodiversity and land use. Economic indicators represent the accomplishment of sustainable coastal economy. Many issues have been identified which are important for the economic contribution of sustainability, for example the economic stability and resilience, economic diversification, employment opportunities, green economy, investments in climate change mitigation and adaptation. In this category there are 9 indicators. Social well-being indicators, 9 in this category, have been chosen to promote social justice and equal opportunities for all members of society. Issues of social well-being have been selected as quality of life, educational opportunities, and conservation of cultural heritage, crime prevention and safety. Governance (process) indicators have been selected to show to what extent the objectives of integrated management initiative have been practically achieved. There are14 indicators of this category. The tool consists of 6 worksheets. The first worksheet introduces the tool and provides guidelines to the user, additionally, there is space (highlighted) to provide the title, map and pictures of the study site. The next four worksheets are divided into categories of indicators which are compiled in the tables. Please see an example of the tool in Fig.  3 .

Excerpt from the tool of social well-being category

The tables are divided into columns representing: indicator, description, scoring ranges, indicator total score and comments. Two different scoring ranges by Likert scale were developed to give a quantitative score for each indicator. The first scale has seven ranges for scoring the sustainability indicators (environmental quality, economics, and social well-being). As shown in the Fig. 3 , indicators need to be scored on scale from a minimum value “-3” to maximum value “3”. The scores indicate a degree of contribution to sustainability: 3 (strong effects), 2 (considerable effects) and 1 (weak effects). The minus values show negative effects and other values show positive effects, with the exception of “0”, which indicates no contribution to sustainability, i.e., no changes after ICZM measure implementation. The second scoring scale was created for governance (process) indicators. The scale is divided in 5 scoring ranges, ranging from 0 to 4. The 0 value shows that objectives of the indicator were not implemented (no, not at all), other scoring ranges represent the degree of implementation and are divided into: 1 (yes, slightly), 2 (yes, moderately), 3 (yes), 4 (yes, fully). All scores are indicated by the scoring bar under the scoring ranges. The total indicator score will be automatically calculated in the ‘Indicator score’ column and in the ‘Final assessment’ worksheet. The tool is user-friendly and it is easy to understand and to follow the instructions given in the introduction. Aditionally, in the last column of the table the specifications for each indicator need to be filled out by identifying problems occurred by scoring indicators, linking the data sources or adding other additional comments. The comments are important for understanding the coastal systems and later used for interpreting the results. The last worksheet named ‘Final assessment’ shows all calculated results: indicators overall score and the number of the used indicator in the assessment, in forms of tables and graphics. Furthermore, the evaluator of the application should take into account the time used for the application, which is included in the ‘Final assessment’ sheet. The full list of the indicators can be found in the Annex I .

An indicator set application process

An indicator set application process was based on two steps methodology, which was adopted from European INTERREG-IVC-Project SUSTAIN (SUSTAIN partnership 2012 ). Firstly, the evaluator collected the data related to the indicators. Secondly, the indicators were scored based upon the data using a Likert scale. Based on the score of each indicator, the average was automatically calculated and aggregated in the respective categories. If no data was available, the ‘X’ was inserted in the cell and the indicator was excluded from the calculations. Scores were calculated automatically and showed in the final assessment sheet. The average is shown in decimal numbers from −3 to 3 in the sustainability categories and from 0 to 4 in governance category. Furthermore, the time that the application consumed was filled in the ‘Final assessment’ sheet.

The indicator set was applied to diffrenet case studies using two methods: a fast screening and an analysis in-depth. Whereas the time for an in-depth analysis of one study is unlimited the given time frame for the evaluation of one study via screening is restricted to an exact time limit of a maximum of 12–16 h. Furthermore, we included time restriction in order to find out if a fast screening method by non-experts of study site will be comparable as in-depth evaluation and if the available time resources are restricting. The indicator set was applied in-depth to seven different case studies of Lithuania, Finland and Germany by experts of the study sites. Additionally, in order to compare the two methods, the three applications were repeated using fast screening method for three German cases by non-expert evaluator. Applications for coastal management case study of Abbott’s Hall using the fast screening method were done by 4 evaluators with different backgrounds. The experts conducting in-depth analysis had various data available, due to their long involvement into the respective studies, ranging from different literature, online resources, observations in site, interviews and talks with locals and other specialists. The search of data by fast screening method is regulated by the evaluator and was mostly based on personal knowledge, opinion, theoretical considerations, information publicly available in OURCOAST database and other internet sources. The evaluators had to complete the evaluation on their own and were not allowed to talk to each other, neither about the meaning of a specific indicator nor about anything in regard to the content of the best practice in order to achieve results best comparable. Furthermore, they were not allowed to share their data amongst each other. Questions that arose during the application, especially concerning the understanding of the indicators, had to be solved self-dependently. This way, the comprehensibleness of indicators is tested as well as the possibility to transfer this tool to an application on local levels and by non-scientists. Applications were carried out using the same available data and with the time restrictions without contact to site experts.

There is no overall definition of a best practice or what charactersitics have to be fulfilled to account for one but we are presenting different key elements that have to be fulfilled in order to account for a best practice. The criteria are based on the indicators of sustainability, the ICZM and SAF principles. A case study can be characterised as best practice if it has a broad overall perspective and merges environmental, economic and social aspects, if its measures collaborate with natural systems while respecting their capability and when it is seminal and promising, not just in specific case but also for other regions. Furthermore, an improvement of the state of sustainability in all categories has to be achieved and the protection of the coastal and marine environment should be enacted. The provision of systematic solution, which is responding to the practical needs of the area is important as well as the involvement of all parties concerned. It should mobilise the best available knowledge, which is supporting deliberative decision making process, support and involve relevant administrative bodies. If basically all criteria are fulfilled, the respective case study can be described as a best practice example. However, it is still possible that implemented measures are best practice. This has to be further monitored and evaluated.

Study sites

Seven study sites covering different coastal themes and policy objectives in Germany (Geltinger Birk, Timmendorf, Markgrafenheide), Lithuania (Rusne, Klaipeda) and Finland (Southwest and Western Finland), were selected for analysis in-depth. The objective was to assess if studies are considered as best practice examples (see Fig.  4 ).

Study sites of in-depth analysis: ( a ) Geltinger Birk, ( b ) Timmendorf, ( c ) Markgrafenheide, ( d ) Klaipeda, ( e ) Rusne, ( f ) Western Finland, ( g ) Southwest Finland

Additionally, 14 studies from Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland were selected for fast screening analysis in order to have an international comparison of different ICZM best practice examples (see Fig.  5 ). The established criteria leading to these choices were: the best practice describes a measure implemented in coastal areas; the spatial scale; a broad variety in key approaches given, in order to test the tool in different cases to ensure it is widely applicable; sufficient data availability; especially for those studies conducted in countries where German or English is not the first language. The variety of cases led us to test suitabilty of indicators. Study sites used for fast screening method are described by themes, key approaches, objectives and main measures and summarized in a table available in the Annex II .

Study sites selected for fast screening method: (1) Geltinger Birk, (2) Timmendorf, (3) Markgrafenheide, (4) Gotland, (5) Ystad, (6) Køge Bay, (7) Tryggelev Nor, (8) Odense, (9) Rotterdam, (10) Perkpolder, (11) Coastline: Weybourne to Lowestoft, (12) Abbott’s Hall, (13) Horsey Islnad, (14) Inch Beach, Co. Kerry

Additionally, three German case studies (Geltinger Birk, Markgrafenheide and Timmendorf) were chosen to compare the in-depth analysis and fast screening, with the focus on the differences of the evaluations. Moreover, a comparison of the different assessments was made on Abbot‘s Hall (see Fig. 5 , number 12), which was evaluated 4 times by different evaluators.

Coastal nature restoration and flooding in Geltinger Birk, Germany

The nature reserve Geltinger Birk is located at the entrance of the Flensburg fjord, in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein. Geltinger Birk is a coastal wetland with lagoons separated by sandy spits from the Baltic Sea and it covers an area of 10 km 2 at the northern German Baltic coast. A combined coastal realignment and nature protection scheme was implemented in this study site. Two major scenarios were developed, either to upgrade the old dyke at costs of 10 million euros or to create a realigned protected coastline with a new shortened dyke with costs of 6 million euros (including costs for land purchase). The second scenario included a re-wetting with a water level 1 m below sea level and the restoration of temporary lagoons. In 1993 the parliament of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein agreed on the second scenario and demanded local stakeholder involvement in the implementation process. As a consequence, 6 scenarios for the future integrated development of the Birk were developed and commercial agriculture was determined. This process took another 20 years to fully implement the measure and the management concept. In 2013, the implementation of the measure was completed and the first controlled large scale test flooding took place. During the implementation agriculture, a farm and houses, owned by permanent residents, had to be given up. The old dyke was decommissioned and a new one was built to protect the village Falshöft. Problems with local acceptance, public participation and information seriously hampered the project. Climate change, the associated sea level rise and increasing costs for coastal protection, favour combined coastal realignment and wetland restoration measures but require a much faster implementation. The study site of Geltinger Birk is an example of the successful technical implementation from a nature protection and coastal engineering point of view ((Hofstede, personal communication, April 22, 2016).

Results of evaluation in-depth on category level

Fast screening evaluation results of Abbot’s Hall by evaluators with different background

Results comparison of fast screening (grey triangle; light yellow bar) and analysis in-depth (black triangle; dark yellow bar) evaluations

Coastal protection & realignment and the role of public participation in Markgrafenheide, Germany

The study covers a coastal protection and realignment measure in the village of Markgrafenheide, located in the rural part of the city of Rostock. Markgrafenheide has a population of around 560 inhabitants and the local economy depends mostly on tourism. Markgrafenheide and the adjacent nature reserve Hütelmoor have a total outer coastline of around 6 km, with a long history of coastal protection measures. Yet, the village had been further at risk of inland flooding from the ‘Breitling’, a wide opening of the lower Warnow river and was one of the priority cases of coastal protection in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Therefore, plannings for a complex protection scheme, initiated by the State Agency for Environment and Nature, started in the 1990s and a ring-dyke was constructed around the village and completed in 2006. Hütelmoor area was drained until 2008 and used for extensive agriculture. Within the scope of the realignment measure, the pumping station was abandoned and drainage of the area stopped leading to a rise in water levels and partly inundation of meadows (Weisner and Schernewski 2013 ). Despite being considered an outstanding example from a coastal protection and nature conservation point of view, the measure triggered a long-lasting controversial debate. Stakeholder groups affected by the coastal protection and realignment group include the local populations, different regional and state authorities and agencies, tourism businesses and visitors.

Public participation in Integrated Flood Risk Management in Timmendorf, Germany

Timmendorfer Strand and Scharbeutz are two renowned coastal holiday resorts located on the Baltic Sea coast of Germany. With about 1.3 million overnight stays per year, the local economy depends strongly on tourist activities. At the same time, almost 6000 inhabitants live in coastal flood-prone areas and are at risk from extreme storm surges. The main flood defence is the natural beach-ridge with heights of about 2.5 to 4.0 m above mean sea level. Climate change and sea-level rise called for a new coastal defence strategy in this study site. The municipalities are responsible for flood defence. Coastal defence authorities have, in the past, pointed out the hazard and proposed technical solutions. A solution of building a sea wall on the beach was met with great scepticism by the local community, which strongly depends upon the beach as the main tourist attraction. To overcome this deadlock situation, in 1999, the municipalities and coastal defence authorities agreed upon a new and participative procedure to develop an integrated flood defence solution. As a starting point, a public meeting with about 65 persons was organised, followed by another five more meetings in working groups and a final public meeting. The major objective was to carry out a sensitivity analysis in a participatory process, which included characterisation of the system with appropriate variables, definition of the effects (direction and strength) of the system variables upon each other, definition and simulation of different scenarios focusing on the problem/action and development of recommendations as to which coastal protection measures should be implemented in the region. The objectives were reached within the given time-frame. In a participative process, this strategy was successfully developed by local stakeholders, municipalities and coastal defence authorities (Hofstede and Schernewski 2005 ).

Integrated shoreline management for a large harbour city and an adjacent seaside resort, Lithuania

The study site focuses on integrated shoreline management of the continental Baltic Sea coast of Lithuania stretching over 45 km from the Klaipeda Strait to the border with Latvia. In 2001, a pilot programme was undertaken to stabilize recreational beaches of Palanga seaside resort, located north of the Klaipeda seaport. These beaches were particularly vulnerable facing increased storm frequency and mismanagement in the previous decades. The nearshore and beach nourishment was aimed to mitigate former human intervention, which caused the deficit of sediments, without compromising the naturalness of the coastal zone of Lithuania. The coastal nourishment is regularly continued since 2001. Nowadays it is a core element of the national integrated shoreline management programme of Lithuania. It balances the necessity to maintain the seaside beaches of Klaipeda and Palanga as the main recreational amenities for seaside tourism, and the need to compensate the affected sectors, primarily the foreshore fisheries (Povilanskas 2010 ).

Restoration of important habitats through sustainable agricultural practices, Rusne (Lithuania)

This study site focuses on integration of dairy farming on alluvial grasslands with nature conservation of valuable bird habitats. Rusne Island is widely known as the bird paradise. The fertile sediments facilitate the development of prosperous alluvial grasslands, which support a rich biodiversity. However, in the beginning of the 90s, almost all grasslands were abandoned. They became overgrown with scrub and reeds, unsuitable as feeding and breeding habitat for most of the birds but still used for roof making. The lack of funds, initiatives and capacity of the local farmers impeded a rapid and successful land reform. Low agriculture activity was followed by degradation of grasslands as habitats for the rare and endangered species. The main goals of the initiatives taken was to encourage environmentally sound and sustainable agriculture by management of the abandoned grasslands on Rusne Island. The dual purpose was to improve the local economy and make the grasslands more suitable for breeding and migratory birds. Other objectives aimed to promote environmental/ecological education within the local population and to develop ecotourism. Rusne Island is an example of how traditional farming practices stimulate the local economy and support conservation goals through good management of the land. This case shows that sustainable agricultural practices can embrace nature conservation and improve the local community economy. It shows that for an action to be successful at the local level, a strong local partner working closely with all stakeholders is an advantage (Pickaver 2010 ).

ICZM in the Bothnian Sea, Western Finland

The general objective of the Bothnian Sea ICZM was to apply an integrated spatial planning and management approach for the coastal zone of the northeast part of the Baltic Sea, in Finland (situated between the Aland and the Kvarken archipelagos). This planning approach, which was new for Finland, was integrated into the regional spatial planning system and was the responsibility of the governing and regional development bodies in the Satakunta and Ostrabothnia regions. The initial project launched in 2009, was later split into three parallel continuous projects, inspired by the National ICZM Strategy for Finland (2006), the Baltic Sea Action Plan (2008) and the EU Water Framework Directive. It was a consistent integrated spatial planning effort on the regional and municipal levels implemented in parallel in both regions, with specific attention to the Kvarken archipelago as a special pilot area. The main sectors addressed were fisheries and aquaculture, tourism and recreational facilities, coastal forestry, nature conservation and aquatic environment protection.

Coastal management measure for Southwest Finland

The project objectives were to develop and implement innovative and effective measures for ICZM in Southwest Finland. The project enabled the drawing up of a comprehensive ICZM strategy for Southwest Finland. It addressed the issues and constraints of preserving the regional lifestyle and economic activities while at the same time tackling the need for environmental protection of the HELCOM hot-spot area of the Archipelago Sea. This included participatory planning with all relevant stakeholders involved, and created a framework for decision-making to ensure that the special circumstances of the area were taken into consideration. It featured the extensive inclusion of regional stakeholders and the general public to ensure a shared understanding of integrated coastal zone management. The stakeholder forum “Pro Skärgårdshavet” comprised between 60 to 70 stakeholders, from NGOs to industrial companies. A specific pilot project, to demonstrate coastal zone management in an operational context was established around the Uusikaupunki city.

Results and discussion

Critical evaluation of the tool: suitability and limitations of the indicator set.

Environmental quality indicators for application were used based on environmental themes to measure progress in achieving environmental objectives (Fig.  6 ). The indicators “4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13” – indicators reflected by many measures; “8, 9” – indicators covered specific coastal theme and they were affected by some study sites. The remain indicators were more complicated to understand and posed some difficulties when applying them to the study sites. The 1st environmental quality indicator raised the question about what can be considered as pollution. In some cases, it was understandable as emission and in other cases implied as increased sand accumulation, due to conducted measures, as a part of this indicator. A short explanation for the 3rd indicator of is needed because it was not clear what is meant by ecological status of water, furthermore, the other part of this indicator is related to chemical status of water. The 10th indicator in this category was rarely answered because of misunderstanding the definition of energy efficiency and there were some difficulties interpreting the given data and to score the indicator. A short explanation of this indicator would probably be helpful especially, if the tool is applied by evaluators with different background or non-scientists. The 12th indicator proved to be hard to assess due to data availability and led to high subjectivity when giving the score.

Indicators application results of Environmental quality category. The scores indicate a degree of contribution to sustainability of environmental quality. Scale from −3/dark red = strong negative effects; −2/light red = considerable negative effects; −1/orange = weak negative effects; 0/yellow = no effect; 1/light green = weak positive effects; 2/lime green = considerable effects; 3/green = strong positive effects

Another problem is the broadness of some indicators. Those enumerating two or more characteristics combined with the linking word and are challenging to score. As an example, for the indicator ‘1. The best practice reduces waste, prevents air, water and soil pollution and stimulates material reuse and recycles’, several issues are addressed and one has to scale the importance of them respectively, in order to estimate the appropriate score. If the best practice, for example, reduces waste and furthermore builds a new recycling plant, which is in turn increasing air pollution, which score would be acceptable? Or if only 2 of the issues asked are addressed and there is either no data on the others or no change observable, is it still reasonable to give the highest score? For some indicators, a solution could be to address only one objective or split the indicator in two.

Overall, environmental quality indicators were helpful for evaluating environmental progress towards sustainable development and useful to indicate ICZM measures effect in respect to environment.

Economic category, turned out to be incomplete because not all 9 indicators were successful in tracking changes in respect to economics (Fig.  7 ). Application results showed that three out of nine economic indicators (“1. Effects financial policies and instruments to support economic stability and resilience; 2. Increases economic diversification; 7. Increases investment in innovation for green economy”) were not affected by many measures with respect to thematic coverage. The indicators which raised many questions were 4th and 9th in since it was unclear what are these indicators exactly asking for: further investments in the respective study or further investments in prospective other studies. In this case, both definitions are reasonable. For instance, when maintenance work is reduced, further investments are unnecessary. A positive score could still be entered, but this is totally up to the evaluator and highly increases subjectivity. The 7th indicator was hardly applied because evaluators had to assume, based on given data, whether or not an increase in green economy is observable. Evaluators commented that short a explanation is needed. The 5th indicator ‘The best practice promotes infrastructure development and increases environmental friendly transport’ has two objectives. Even though they influence one another, infrastructure development can be promoted without an increase in environmental friendly transport and vice versa, so splitting indicator in two would be reasonable. Furthermore, is the issue of environmental friendly transport also included in the 11th indicator of environmental quality category. The indicators that were well understandable and easy to apply but also had some shortcomings were: 3, 6 – indicators were reflected by many measures, 8 important showing changes in respect to sustainable agriculture and fisheries.

Indicators application results of Economic category. The scores indicate a degree of contribution to sustainability of economic category. Scale from −3/dark red = strong negative effects; −2/light red = considerable negative effects; −1/orange = weak negative effects; 0/yellow = no effect; 1/light green = weak positive effects; 2/lime green = considerable effects; 3/green = strong positive effects

Social well-being indicators helped to reflect the changes of this category by using 9 indicators in all analysed study sites. The 1st and 2nd indicators scoring strongly differed between evaluations because of different understanding of what is social justice, equal opportunities and quality of life. The different understanding of indicator objectives caused subjectivity in its weighting. The 3rd indicator covered to many objectives in one and increased subjectivity by giving the score. The indicators that were well understandable and easy to apply were: 4, 5, 7, 8. The 6th indicator was hardly applied to case studies because it has specific objectives. Language and interpretation also needs to be considered, if a clear communication and a common message wants to be achieved. For example, the 9th indicator of ‘The best practice reduces vulnerability of people to climate change and promotes comprehensive risk based assessment and prioritised action in area’. It is, first of all, very long and to some evaluators, it was not clear what exactly is meant by ‘comprehen-sive risk based assessment’, or what ‘prioritised action’ should include. For the social well-being indicators often the problem occurs, that information about the process is considered. For instance, if the best practice promotes communication and cooperation between citizens and local authorities. The communication during the planning and implementation should be considered in governance category. A more explicit formulation could prevent this doubling. Furthermore, indicators are quite wordy and can lead to different interpretations affecting the scores. Some of the indicators are slightly repetitive and the same data can be addressed for different indicators. Some evaluators are only paying attention to specific keywords, others may see the bigger picture of it and interpret data differently. If the wrong conclusions are drawn, the evaluation will be affected negatively leading to falsified results. Furthermore, in some cases the indicators are asking for a wide range of changes, this is the case of the 5th indicator which asks if the best practice protects, monitors, and safeguards local resident access to natural, historical, archaeological, religious, spiritual, and cultural sites. Here, a highly subjective evaluation can be expected. The question one should ask himself is if it is necessary that all these points have to be addressed.Strong positive effects can therefore still occur but are difficult to evaluate without a site inspection and only based on literature (Fig.   8 ).

Indicators application results of Social Well-being category. The scores indicate a degree of contribution to sustainability of social well-being. Scale from −3/dark red = strong negative effects; −2/light red = considerable negative effects; −1/orange = weak negative effects; 0/yellow = no effect; 1/light green = weak positive effects; 2/lime green = considerable effects; 3/green = strong positive effects

Governance indicators were complete and demonstrated the ICZM process from starting to build a management team, to evaluation of implemented measure success. The process of planning and implementing the measure is following the Systems Approach Framework. There is a small degree of subjectivity but usually it only slightly modifies the score. For instance, some of the process indicators ask for alternative scenarious but in some cases no alternatives were suggested or discussed, as the one implemented was the only suitable measure, therefore the best solution. Scoring the indicator with ‘0’, for ‘No, not at all’, would unjustifiably downscale the effectiveness of the study. The bigger differences can be attributed to the lack of data. The 12th indicator ‘The concept was implemented and accepted by the public’ could be splited in two because it covers two diffrenet objectives. Yet, the last indicator, which asks if the success of the measure was evaluated, is sometimes hard to assess since some reports only summarise that it was a big success but do not show specific results or ranked evaluations. To use the indicators optimally, the cross-linking of different indicators is needed and the relationship with the governance of the coast needs to be demonstrated (Maelfait et al. 2006 ) (Fig. 9 ).

Governance (process) indicators application results. The scores evaluate management processes following the SAF procedure steps. Scale ranges from: 0/yellow = no, not at all; 1/light green = yes, slightly; 2/lime green = yes, moderately; 3/green = yes; 4/dark green = yes, fully

In some study sites applications, sustainability indicators have high scores because they can be very important in specific ICZM context and cover different themes. In the prevailing literature, controversial discussions about sustainability indicators are observed. The main critics is the reductionism or over-simplification and the subjectivity when applying indicators (Singh et al. 2009 ). Others even think, that sustainability and the progress to achieve it cannot be effectively assessed using indicators in general, due to the complexity and equivocality of the concept itself (Mori and Christodoulou 2012 , Reed et al. 2006 ). Even though the indicators have been carefully worded in order to make them understandable and applicable by anybody with interest in the topic, some are verbalised somewhat incomprehensibly. As stated by O’Mahony ( 2009 ), the semantic of indicator sets is decisive.

Consequences of score aggregation

The sustainability appears on three levels, so this methodology is based on triangle of sustainability and its categories are connected to one another. Therefore, the different categories are weighed equally, in order to adjust this indicator set towards an equal status. The categories of tool have different number of indicators that are included in the calculation and affects the category level.

Comparing evaluation in-depth and the fast screen analysis results strongly differ (Fig. 10 ). When analysing these results, it showed that when expert indicated ‘No change’, the evaluator could not find any data and scored indicator as ‘No data’. It is assumed, that when no change of a particular state occurred, there is no data available or is very challenging to find. It was easy to score respective indicators for an expert of particular study. Yet, as the fast screening method evaluator did not have a specific or detailed knowledge about the case study he indicated that no data was available. This led to strong discrepancies since the indicator scored with an ‘X’ (no data) will be excluded from the summation, whereas ‘0’ (no change) reduced the final score of the respective category.

Similar results were noticed and significant differences occured when four evaluators scored the same indicators (Fig. 11 ). For example, the application of Abbot’s Hall showed that 10th indicator in environmental quality, the 6th indicator in social well-being and the 9th indicator in the governance categories were scored as no change by three evaluators while the other evaluator could not find data on that indicator. Between these two answering options the high subjectivity came out. Some evaluators assumed that no change has occurred because nothing related was found during the data research. The indicators which were specified with ‘No data’ in fast screening results of German cases were used to ‘No change’ by following expert results. On the other hand, indicators which are not aggregated but simply listed are often considered to be too complex in practice (Sébastien & Bauler, 2013 ).

Additionally, to avoid significant differences in the results, a solution could be the splitting of indicators into core and optional, this idea is supported by Reed et al. ( 2006 ) in wich is stated that indicators are rarely of equal importance and they could be differentiated through the division into core and optional indicators or the selection of weights. That would equalise all categories but also complicate the comparability between different case studies as not all case studies would assess the same indicators. According to O’Mahony ( 2009 ) is very important that indicator sets should be seen as dynamic as the environment they are trying to represent. When working with the fast screening method, the division into core and optional indicators however, would complicate both the evaluation itself and the comparison of different evaluations. A recommendation depends on how the tool is supposed to be used. Further testing however, is necessary to verify this theory.

The importance of the evaluator, perception and time-frame

The qualitative assessment refers to a more critical evaluation. Indicators applications can be carry out by experts of ICZM measures, scientists or young scientists and non-scientists but experts can bring better knowledge and perception of the study site. Experts of ICZM measures showed relatively fast application process even when there was no fixed time for applying indicator set for applications in-depth.

Throughout our applications, we identified several aspects that influence the evaluator to give a particular indicator score. A difference in the understanding of indicators can be seen from the comparison of the in-depth assessment with the fast screening method assessment (Fig.  10 ), as well as from the comparison of the different evaluations on Abbott’s Hall (Fig. 11 ). Overall, sustainability indicators are quite wordy and can lead to different interpretations and variations in the scores. Personal interpretation is allowed, due to the formulation of the indicators and can have a small impact as well. This was particularly visible in the applications conducted on Abbott’s Hall. Almost the same data was used and according to the results the assessments vary between the different application results. For some indicators, similar comments were given but the scores varied. The 2nd indicator in Economics, for example shows scores from 0 to 3 and the 12th indicator shows strong variations since the environmental awareness is prone to personal perception. Whether or not the evaluator is an optimist or rather pessimistic, in his or her overall worldview, has an influence on some of the indicators.

For the Governance category, there is a small degree of subjectivity but this usually modifies the score by only about one point and do not have high effect on results. Bigger differences can be attributed to the lack of data. Yet, the last indicator, which asks if the success of the measure was evaluated, is hard to assess sometimes since some reports only summarise that it was a big success but do not show specific results or ranked evaluations.

Subjectivity can occur based on two different reasons. First one is connected, in general, to, the different understanding of the indicators whereas the second is connected to, how the data is then interpreted based on this understanding. As the indicators are scored on a Likert Scale, they are already prone to subjectivity. The question is if the rating is well-founded, based on personal perception or a composition of these two.

The academic or professional background affected the selection of scores. If he has, for example, a background in natural science, he will most likely be much more critical in the environmental category when compared to an evaluator having a background in business management more concerned with the economic category. In previous appraisals of coastal sustainability and ICZM implementation, these variations in the perspectives of evaluators have been noticed. For this reason, Pickaver et al. ( 2004 ) and Breton ( 2006 ) suggested to build groups of evaluators with different backgrounds to conduct the assessments, rather than a single person. This would furthermore increase the potential in data processing and lead to more significant results. According to Schernewski et al. ( 2014 ) this resulted in a stabilisation of the results and reduced subjectivity. Results also depend on the evaluators expertise in a specific study site. Even though participatory approaches are setting the context for assessment of sustainability at local scales, the role of an expert, who is leading the indicator evaluation and dissemination, is however very important, as stated by Reed et al. ( 2006 ).

Another reason for variations in the assessments is presumably resulting from differences in language skills. Whereas one evaluator has a very good command of English and is able to understand the data and the indicators, another evaluator might have some problems in understanding the given information. There might be a relation, between language skills and the time consumed for one evaluation. The evaluator with a very good command in English only took 5 h to complete the assessment, whereas the third evaluator, needed more than 13 h. This was already observed in previous assessments of various indicator sets, for example by Schernewski et al. ( 2014 ).

As the different applications are effected by the evaluators’ perception, personal perspective and back-ground, the results are not easily reproducible. Previous assessments for coastal sustainability and ICZM implementation have already been affected by this, which is, why this point is taken into consideration in the development of various indicator sets (Pickaver et al. 2004 ).

When comparing the screened evaluations of the three German case studies with the ones done by an expert applying the in-depth method differences occur (Fig. 10 ). The results of different applications using the two methods are slightly comparable, although their outcome do not have have the same quality. Further testing of this method is needed. An important factor for the tool is the availability of time to ensure the reproducibility and the application on a local level. The time frame of 12 to 16 h for a screened evaluation is not always enough to gather all the information needed to assess the best practices thoroughly. In some cases, the evaluators were able to answer all indicators but in most instances information was lacking. This is leading to problems in the aggregation and the possibility of comparison. However, in most cases, an extension of the time frame would not solve this problem. Some data is not obtainable for a screened evaluation, because an inspection of the site or the consultation of an expert, who participated in the process, would be necessary to successfully evaluate the respective indicator. From the different applications, conducted in a short screening, it becomes clear that a general overview can be obtained in a short time, yet to achieve reliable results either various applications or an expert-led evaluation should be performed. Schönwald ( 2014 ) points out, that time is decisive to attain detailed and informative applications. A comparison of different indicator evaluations is thus not constructive. A holistic approach should be braced to record an overall state of the sustainability. Working with indicators can support the self-assessment, help to recognise problems, to focus on objectives and to estimate bearings of decisions. The use of indicators increases the internal exchange between stakeholders and stimulates to an active partaking in formulating the surrounding conditions. This can lead towards a sustainable development (Schönwald, 2014 ).

Disparities also arose in the areas where the indicators were chosen to be applied, particularly between the expert and the screened evaluations. For instance, for the site Timmendorfer Strand, the expert only considered the beach area, whereas the fast screening evaluator also included the municipality, which lies behind the dunes. Moreover, what influenced the results notably are the differences in definition of what was the state before the implementation and what has been achieved.

The example of the site Timmendorfer Strand where the fast screening method evaluator estimated the improvement of the 4th indicator of environmental quality category to be considerably positive since the population of old trees has been preserved, when discussed with the expert later on this is not considered as an improvement because the old trees have been there before. The expert and the screener had variable starting points in all three case studies. The expert who conducted the in-depth analysis of the three German case studies was completely familiar with the areas Timmendorfer Strand, Markgrafenheide and Geltinger Birk already from the time before any implementation was carried out and thus, had a profound knowledge of the sites. In contrast to this, the screener had only some information available which was based on different states and times. As this information is not congruent to those the expert had access to, differences in the evaluations and the final results are visible. Especially for long-term studies, it is very important to have the previous state and the objectives in mind while evaluating. Besides this, benchmarks are very important to ensure the reproducibility. This was already criticised by Schönwald ( 2014 ) that each evaluator should have thresholds from which a development is to be evaluated and what are the objectives, simulating the maximum permissible value.

Strenght and weaknesses of ICZM study sites

The evaluation covered the full cycle of ICZM and indicators measured the extent to which an action was sustainable, as well as, revealed to which extent targets and objectives towards sustainable development have been met (Fig. 12 ). Results are represented graphically using three axis – an axis for each component of improved sustainability indicating positive changes (weak, considerable, strong). Moreover, the governance (process) bar showes to what extent ICZM was implemented. An indicator-based tool was helpful to evaluate if a study can be defined as best practice. According to the results (analysis in-depth and fast screening), a case study was characterised as best practice if it had a broad overall perspective and merged economic, social and environmental issues, if its measures collaborated with natural systems while respecting their capability and when it was seminal and promising. Furthermore, an improvement of the state of sustainability in all categories have been achieved and the protection of the coastal and marine environment was enacted in all study sites. The provision of a systematic solution, which was responding to the practical needs of the area was important as well as the involvement of all parties concerned. It mobilised the best available knowledge, which was supporting deliberative decision making processes, supported and involved relevant administrative bodies. The study sites application results have different characteristics and some study sites have more impact on a social level, some have a greater impact of environment and, others indicating greater investment in economy. The relations between these categories have to be contemplated as they influence one another. For example, in Finland a cultural tradition is to build holiday houses along the coast but it affects coastal management plans and conservation of habitats and species.

The case study of Geltinger Birk showed considerable positive effects on sustainability. The implementation process itself had some shortcomings. It improved the local state of sustainability and especially had positive impacts on environmental quality. Due to the realignment of the coast, which included the building new dyke, the nearby village is protected from flooding. The re-wetting of the area enhanced the development of biodiversity and the establishment of flora and fauna, which were formerly domiciled here. The measure promoted local economy and increased the low-impact tourism, as well as, had considerable positive effects on social well-being.

Markgrafenheide showed considerable positive effects on development towards sustainability. The aspects that stand out the most are: the prevention, protection and mitigation of floods, the support of natural habitats, biodiversity and their quality. The realignment of the coast as a new approach towards a more sustainable development in this area. According to the evaluation, the process of implementing the measure had several shortcomings, however, critics on the process were made, as the inclusion of the local community and stakeholder groups failed with the start of the project and not all concerns had been considered. Yet, the measure can be evaluated as a success restrospectively because it is an outstanding example of coastal protection and nature conservation.

The implementation of the ICZM initiative on Timmendorfer Strand is estimated as very high with 92%. With the exception of the management team, which was not fully build to lead the planning, the measure was successful implemented according to the guidelines of the Systems Approach Framework. Thus, a successful flood protection system was established after argumentative and strong public participation into the planning and implementation process. The issue was chosen driven by ecological, social and economic needs and targets were set. The possible consequences on these, were identified and a strategy was developed regarding how to assess these effects. All stakeholders were determined and, included into the process and impacts on them were assessed. This lead to an accepted and successful implementation, following SAF leading to an overall success. The results of process showed that good implementation process could have weak positive effects on sustainability. Due to the flood protection walls, the inhabitants living in the área, as well as, their tangible values, are protected. Economic stability and resilience is enhanced and changes in the foreshore area are improving the management of coastal erosion, which is leading to reduced vulnerability to climate change impacts. Climate change is the most significant challenge to achieving sustainable development.

During the analysis of the various case studies (analysis in-depth and fast screening) two keywords arose frequently: ‘public participation’ and ‘development strategy’. The success of an integrated coastal zone management process can be narrowed down to the effective operation between the public and authorities. Looking at the case studies that were evaluated, especially those where public participation was emphasised and where all kind of stakeholder groups were involved from the very beginning of the planning process, were successful. This is one of the main components of the SAF, where the processes planning show good approaches and can yield in successful implementation. For example, in the beginning of the Geltinger Birk process stakeholders and the public were not involved leading to problems and hampering the project. The acceptence of the scheme was very low as not all scenarious were put into account as the affected groups and persons felt excluded. The proper application of the SAF would have avoided this problem. The presented tool could be used to support planning process as well as to help analysing stakeholder participation and their preferences.

The time-frame for evaluation and comparison of results showed high importance. If one evaluation shows a development observed over 5 years and the other considered 20 years of development, the reproducibility of data is insufficient. Initially the study of Timmendorf promoted the communication and cooperation between citizens and local authorities but as the whole process took over 20 years before the implementation, these assets were lost until then. Each case study has to be evaluated separately, with regards to its previous state and the objectives that were predetermined.

All analysed studies have been conducted on a rather small scale, focussing on municipalities and shorter coastal strips. Therefore, based on this research, a distinct statement about the applicability of this tool on different spatial scales is possible. However, as already been mentioned by Schernewski et al. ( 2014 ), based on previous applications of the SUSTAIN indicator set, there is the risk that the spatial coverage of an indicator might go beyond the level of municipalities and results then, rather reflect the regional conditions.

Another important factor for the subsequent evaluation of the assessments are the given comments especially for comparison reasons. Without comments, the given scores are neither comprehensible nor comparable, which decreases the relevance of the evaluation and the tool. Moreover, what has already been stated by O’Mahony ( 2009 ) is that data is not always collected with sustainability in mind and a reliance on surrogate data may tamper the results.

As the principles of ICZM have been stipulated only recently, a lot of initiatives are not finished yet. The effects on environment, social well-being, economy as well as the lessons learned are not measurable as development has to take place first, especially if the changes in the environment are only visible and reliably analysable in the long term. An estimation is therefore, not reasonable. On the other hand, there is not enough data available as often, final reports, are concluding all affected parameters whereas progress reports discuss only parts of the effects. A tendency can be estimated using the tool, but a conformable evaluation should be conducted after completion of the measures.

Due to the novelty of ICZM, long-term studies are rare. For this work, only the initiative in Køge Bay (see Fig. 5 , number 6), which was planned in the 1930s and implemented in the 1970s, was evaluated as a long-term study where a long-term development is observable. However, the data availability for this case is limited. Online resources are rare and data is available in Danish only. This applies as well for the initiative in Perkpolder, which is documented in Dutch. The documentation is not enough for a distinct application of the indicator tool. Moreover, the data search in all cases was the most time consuming part. A common database with sufficient and high quality information is a goal in ICZM, as well as for the SAF (Hopkins et al. 2011 ). A first attempt is the OURCOAST website which holds an ICZM database, containing summaries describing 350 cases where ICZM principles and tools that have been applied. For a decent evaluation the availability of data is therefore decisive.

Conclusions

The indicator set was helpful to evaluate if a case study can be defined as best practice. It was characterised as a best practice if it had a broad overall perspective and merged economic, social and environmental issues. Summarizing results of analysis we conclude that indicator-based tool applications can tell us things such as: to what exent ICZM initiative objectives have been met; what progress the measure has made towards sustainability; to which extent targets have been met.

Results of the fast-screening assessments show, that this method serves to attain a good overview and a first impression of a study site’s state towards sustainable development. Fast-screening results compared with the in-depth method differences occurred. However, both methods results showed improved sustainability and achieved positive changes in respect to sustainable development of specific case studies.

The evaluator as an expert brought a better knowledge on study area. However, subjectivity in the understanding of data and indicators, and the personal perception are influencing results. The availability of time and data is decisive for a successful and reliable evaluation. For the fast-screening method, both are limited and this resulted in differences in both comparisons conducted in this research. Besides this, the evaluator background and his command in the demanded language are influencing the assessment. The idea of building groups of evaluators, thus stabilising the results and minimise subjectivity, should be deepened and the method then further tested.

Indicators should simplify and communicate complex information, but some indicators are incomprehensible and they complicating the application process. A revision of the indicators is needed. They can be tailored to the needs of the strategic goals of ICZM initiatives. To counteract the broadness and to achieve dependable results, some indicators should be splited. A division in core and optional indicators could contribute to appropriate weighting and make their use more flexible. However, the tool only indicates that something has happened but there is not proof and results can not tell us: why and how changes occur and what solutions should be undertaken but it could help for coastal management decision making.

Change history

25 april 2018.

The article Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe using an indicator based tool, written by Donalda Karnauskaitė, Gerald Schernewski, Johanna Schumacher, Rebecca Grunert, and Ramūnas Povilanskas, was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal.

Azuz-Adeath I, García-Gutiérrez C, Alonso-Peinado H, Torres-Navarrete C, Diaz-Mondragon S (2015) Design and evaluation of marine and coastal governance indicators for the Southern Mexican region. J Integr Coast Zone Manag 15:333–351. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci578

Google Scholar  

Ballinger R, Pickaver A, Lymbery G, Ferreira M (2010) An evaluation of the implementation of the European ICZM principles. Ocean Coast Manag 53:738–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.013

Belfiore S, Balgos M, Mclean B, Galofre J, Blaydes M, Tesch D (eds) (2003) A reference guide on theuse of indicators for integrated coastal management—ICAM Dossier 1, IOC Manuals and Guides No.45. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001305/130584e.pdf . Accessed 12 Dec 2015

Belfiore S, Barbiere J, Bowen R, Cicin-Sain B, Ehler C, Mageau C, McDougall D, Siron R (2006) A handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of integrated coastal and ocean management. IOC Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier 2, UNESCO, Paris, France. Accessed Dec 2015

Breton F (2006) Report on the use of the ICZM indicators from the WG-ID. A contribution to the ICZM evaluation. Version 1. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_wgid.pdf . Accessed 11 Feb 2016

Burbridge PR (1997) A generic framework for measuring success in integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag 37:175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(97)00051-3

Article   Google Scholar  

Cummins V, McKenna J (2010) The potential role of Sustainability Science in coastal zone management. Ocean Coast Manag 53:796–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.019

DEDUCE Consortium (2007) Using indicators to measure development at the European coasts. http://www.vliz.be/projects/deduce/pdf-newsletter/deduce_3.pdf . Accessed 13 Jan 2016

Diedrich A, Tintore J, Navines F (2010) Balancing science and society through establishing indicators for integrated coastal zone management in the Balearic Islands. Mar Policy 34:772–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.01.017

Ehler CN (2003) Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag 46:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00020-6

European Commission (1999) Towards a European Integreated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Strategy: General Principles and Policy Options. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

European Commission (2013) Impact assessment accompanying the document proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing aframework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management. Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013SC0064 . Accessed 14 Dec 2015

European Parliament and Council (2002) Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe (2002/413/EC). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002H0413 Accessed March 2016

Gallagher A (2010) The coastal sustainability standard: A management systems approach to ICZM. Ocean Coast Manag 53:336–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.017

Gvilava M, Bakuradze T, Gigineishvili A (2015) Easy to use tools for ICZM progress reporting and coastal indicators. J Coast Conserv 19:643–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-015-0375-y

Henocque Y (2003) Development of process indicators for coastal zone management assessment in France. Ocean Coast Manag 46:363–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00013-9

Hoffmann J (2009) Indicators for an ICZM. Experience with a problem-oriented approach. J Coast Conserv 13:141–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-009-0052-0

Hofstede J, Schernewski G (2005) Two coastal management and public participation case studies in Germany. International Conference on Coastal Conservation and Management in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1294 . Accessed 19 April 2016

Hopkins TS, Bailly D, Støttrup JG (2011) A Systems Approach Framework for Coastal Zones. Ecol Soc 16:25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04553-160425

Maccarrone V, Filiciotto F, Buffa G, Mazzola S, Buscaino G (2014) The ICZM balanced scorecard: a tool for putting integrated coastal zone management into action. Mar. Policy 44:321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.024

Maelfait H, Belpaeme K, Lescrauwaet A, Mees J, Forkiewicz M (2006) Indicators as reliable guides for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=AV20120155221 . Accessed 11 January 2016

Meiner A (2010) Integrated maritime policy for the European Union - consolidating coastal and marine information to support maritime spatial planning. J Coast Conserv 14:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-009-0077-4

Mori K, Christodoulou A (2012) Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ Impact Assess Rev 32(1):94–106

Newton A (2012) A systems approach for sustainable development in coastal zones. Ecol Soc 17:3–4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04711-170341

O'Mahony C (2009) Applying Indicators to Aspects of Coastal Management in Ireland. Marine Socio-Economic Workshop, November 3rd 2009, Beaufort http://www.nuigalway.ie/semru/documents/applying_indicators_to_aspects_of_coastal_management.pdf . Accessed 12 Jan 2016

Olsen SB (2003) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean Coast Manag 46:347–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00012-7

Pendle M (2013) Estuarine and coastal managed realignment sites in England. A comparison of predictions with monitoring results for selected case studies. HR Wallingford, Wallingford, pp 31–32. http://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/664/1/HRPP627-Managed_realignment.pdf

Pickaver AH (2010) Restoration and conservation of impoerant habitats through sustainable agricultural practices, Rusne. http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=6&articleID=74 Accessed 21 May 2016

Pickaver AH, Gilbert C, Breton F (2004) An indicator set to measure the progress in the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe. Ocean Coast Manag 47:449–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.06.001

Povilanskas R (2010) Integrated shorline management for a large harbour city and an adjacent seaside resort. European Comission OURCOAST portal for ICZM. http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=6&articleID=322 . Accessed 21 May 2016

Reed MS, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ (2006) An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59(4):406–418

Schernewski G, Schönwald S, Katarzyte M (2014) Application and evaluation of an indicator set to measure and promote sustainable development in coastal areas. Ocean Coast Manag 101:2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.028

Schönwald S (2014) Bericht zum Anwendungsprojekt 8 „Standortplanung im Klimawandel“. RADOST Fokusthema Tourismus und Strandmanagement: EUCC – Die Küsten Union Deutschland, Rostock http://www.klimzug-radost.de/sites/default/files/Bericht_Anwendungsprojekt_8_final.pdf

Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2001) Indicators to monitor the progress of integrated coastal zone management: a review of worldwide. http://www.ikzmoder.de/download.php?fileid=246 . Accessed 16 March 2016

Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 9(2):189–212

Sébastien L, Bauler T (2013) Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level. Eclogical Indicators. 35:3–12

SUSTAIN partnership (2012) Measuring coastal sustainability. A guide for the self-assessment of sustainability using indicators and a means of scoring them. 13 pp. http://www.sustain-eu.net/what_are_we_doing/measuring_coastal_sustainability.pdf . Accessed 20 April 2016

Weisner E, Schernewski G (2013) Adaptation to climate change: a combined coastal protection and re-alignment scheme in a Baltic tourism region. J Coast Res Spec Issue 65:1963–1968. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI65-333.1

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was part-funded by the BONUS BaltCoast project. BONUS-BaltCoast has received funding from BONUS (Art 185) funded jointly from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, and from Baltic Sea national funding institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Marine Research Institute, Klaipeda University, H. Manto 84, LT-92294, Klaipėda, Lithuania

Donalda Karnauskaitė & Gerald Schernewski

Coastal & Marine Management Group, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde, Seestrasse 15, D-18119, Rostock, Germany

Donalda Karnauskaitė, Gerald Schernewski, Johanna Schumacher & Rebecca Grunert

Department of Recreation and Tourism, Klaipeda University, H. Manto 84, LT-92294, Klaipėda, Lithuania

Ramūnas Povilanskas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donalda Karnauskaitė .

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.

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 use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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

Karnauskaitė, D., Schernewski, G., Schumacher, J. et al. Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe using an indicator based tool. J Coast Conserv 22 , 549–570 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0597-x

Download citation

Received : 16 December 2016

Revised : 02 October 2017

Accepted : 05 February 2018

Published : 07 March 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0597-x

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

• Sustainability
• System Approach Framework
• Coastal realignment
• Participation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Scaling Up Integrated Coastal Management: Case Studies in Sustainable Development

PUBLICATION DATE:

Sunday, July 01, 2012

PUBLICATION TYPE:

Magazines and Newsletters

Out of Print

DESCRIPTION:

This issue of Tropical Coasts expounds on different cases across the region that highlight the contributions of integrated and holistic management for sustainable development of coastal communities and sectors of the economy that are highly dependent on coastal resources. It features how the scaling up of ICM builds the capacity to adjust and respond to the growing challenges of a changing environment in Danang and Chonburi and contributes to the sustainable tourism in Bali and Sihanoukville. The issue also covers the implementation of the Port, Safety, Health and Environmental Management System (PSHEMS) in two major ports in the region. What is evident in the cases in this issue is that the scope of ICM implementation is growing. The case studies show that through ICM programs, the local governments and ports were able to maintain a balance between economic development and environmental and social demands and harness the potential that ICM offers. It is hoped that the experiences and lessons shared in these case studies will contribute to the replication of ICM across the region.

RELATED PUBLICATIONS

2023 Audited Financial Statement

Proceedings of the Thirty Second Meeting of the Executive Committee

The 32nd PEMSEA Executive Committee (EC) Meeting was conducted virtually on 19 March 2024 via Zoom. Participants of the meeting included the EC members , particularly the Chair and Co-Chair, Intergovernmental Session Chair and Co-Chair, the Technical Session Chair of the EAS Partnership Council (PC), and the Executive Director of the PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF). Observers from the China PEMSEA Center, Ministry of Environment (MoE) of Cambodia, and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of the Philippines also attended the meeting. PRF served as the Secretariat of the meeting.

PEMSEA Brochure 2024

This PEMSEA e-brochure provides a quick introduction to the partnerships, its role, its networks and the services it offers.  For more detailed information, please go to the homepage and browse the various sections of the website.

Proceedings of the 2023 PEMSEA Network of Local Governments Forum (PNLG) "Developing Coastal Cities, Fostering Blue Partnership"

The 2023 Forum of the PNLG with the theme, “Developing Coastal Cities, Fostering Blue Partnership” was hosted by the PNLG and PEMSEA and co-organized by the PNLG Secretariat, PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF) and Coastal and Ocean Management Institute (COMI) of Xiamen University (XMU). The forum was conducted on 8-11 November 2023 in Xiamen, China. The PNLG Forum was one of the key events of the Xiamen World Ocean Week. 

The Forum was participated by over 130 participants from: 

• 23 members from seven countries, namely: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, RO Korea, and Timor Leste,
• 4 PNLG Associate members, namely the First Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, China; Coastal and Ocean Management Institute (COMI) and Fujian Institute for Sustainable Oceans (FISO) of Xiamen University (XMU), China, and National Ocean Technology Center (NOTC) of the Ministry of Natural Resources, China;
• resource speakers and other invited experts,
• the PNLG Secretariat, and  

Proceedings of PEMSEA Network of Learning Centers (PNLC) back - to - back Events

The document contains the proceedings of three back-to-back activities that were conducted in Seoul, Republic of Korea from 31 October to 3 November 2023.

The activities include:

• The 6th Geo Blue Planet Symposium on Digital Solution for Sustainable Ocean Community on October 31
• PEMSEA Learning Exchange on Good Practices in Implementing Biodiversity Conservation-Focused Ecosystem and Area-based Management Approaches on November 1
• The 3rd PEMSEA Network of Learning Centers (PNLC) General Assembly Meeting on November 2

The activities were organized by the PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF) with support from RoKorea Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries, the Korea Maritime Institute (KMI), and the Korea Management Corporation (KOEM), and the Korea Blue Carbon Research Center.

Participants include 39 representatives from 17 of the 21 PNLC members, officers, and staff from KMI, KOEM, the Korea Blue Carbon Research Center, and the PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF).

The WWF is run at a local level by the following offices...

• AsiaPacific
• Central African Republic
• Central America
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• European Policy Office
• Greater Mekong
• Hong Kong SAR
• Mediterranean
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Regional Office Africa
• South Africa
• South Pacific
• Switzerland
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Solomon Islands
• Network Standards & Policies
• Climate Change
• Sustainable Coastal Resource Use Management
• Efficiency in Tourism
• Marine Species
• Network Initiatives
• Offshore Fisheries
• International Eco-Internship Programme
• Corporate Engagement
• Pacific Shark Heritage Programme
• Turtle Ball
• Publications
• Resource Library

Ensuring Sustainable Coastal Communities: A Case Study on Solomon Islands

Ensuring Sustainable Coastal Communities report

PDF 4.68 MB

Get Involved

Working to sustain the natural world for the benefit of people and nature

• RSS/Web Feeds

© 2021 WWF - World Wide Fund For Nature © 1986 Panda Symbol WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) ® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark Creative Commons license .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A Case Study of Ubay, Bohol on Sustainable Coastal and Fishery Resource Management

Related Papers

BIMP-EAGA Journal for Sustainable Tourism Development

Eva Marie Connie Ponce De Leon

This study is an inquiry on the “low fisheries productivity” of a potentially resourcerich coastal ecosystem of 1,408 km2 in San Vicente, Palawan, Philippines. Three main coastal habitats, namely: mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass beds located in four fishing grounds were investigated. Field observations and rapid appraisal methodology using key informant interviews and focused group discussions were involved in the process. A municipal level stakeholders’ validation was done to confirm initial findings. Results showed 8 major fishing gears are operating in 4 bays, of which 5 are passive and 3 are active gears. A total of 103 fish species from 48 families and a major species of squid comprised the catch, of which 60% is reefassociated species. San Vicente’s present fisheries productivity of 1,557.68 metric tons (mt) per year or an extraction rate equivalent to only 1.1 mt/km2/year is far behind its estimated potential yield of 7,040.40 mt per year. In general, the municipal fishi...

Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology

vahid chamanara

Journal of Environmental Science Studies

Bryan Bitantos

Dumanquillas Bay is a body of saltwater and the major source of food located in the Southern Mindanao. It has been observed that marine resources and fish catch in the area are declining. This study assumed that fishing practices affect the decline of marine and fish catch in the bay. A study on the documentation of fishing practices in the area is reported here. Key informant interview (KII), focus group discussion, direct observation and document archival were used. Twenty-three (23) fishing practices were observed in the area. Based on R.A. 10654 or the Philippine Fisheries Code, five (5) fishing practices were identified in the bay which are illegal. These are “pahulbot sa lalum”, “pahulbot sa mabaw”, “panubli”, “panguryente” and “troll” that destroys sea grasses, coral reefs and the sea beds. The illegal fishing practices identified poses a threat to the marine resources. It implies weak implementation of fishing policies among the LGU’s and other concerned government instituti...

Engineer: Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka

Harsha Ratnasooriya

Walter Barrella , mariana clauzet

l Abstract A total of 442 anglers in a coastal region of SE Brazil were interviewed to obtain information about recreational fishing. The anglers were mature individuals (mean age %43 years) with a high level of education. However, many did not have a fishing licence. Target fishes belonged to 47 species. Mean catch (Catch per unit effort-CPUE) was 4.2 fish À1 day À1 or 488 g À1 angler À1 day À1. Total estimated catch in the study period was equivalent to 2% of commercial landings, indicating that recreational fishing has little impact on fish stocks. The anglers complained that fishing conditions had worsened because of environmental degradation. Catch-and-release was classified as a 'good' attitude despite reports of practices that caused suffering to fish. However, when asked about prohibition of catch-and-release, which is enforced in some countries, the anglers said they would not accept such a prohibition if proposed by Brazilian fishing authorities. As a general rule, issues related to animal welfare and animal rights are not discussed widely by society or by fishing authorities in Brazil. Suggestions for integrated management of coastal resources and for monitoring recreational fishing are presented. K E Y W O R D S :

Romie Laranjo

benjamin gonzales

I Nyoman Sukraaliawan

María Graciela Alcalá Moya

RELATED PAPERS

Bulletin De L Institut Francais D Etudes Andines

Anne Marie Hocquenghem

rpl angkasa

Journal of Agricultural Science

Wedisson Santos

The Proceedings of the National Symposium on Power and Energy Systems

Tomio Okawa

JualObatpembesaralatvitalpriamrptitangelaslidiCirebon

Jual Obat pembesar alat vital pria mr p titan gel asli di medan

Silvia IVALDI

HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.)

Yeshwas Alemu

Alejandro LLamas

Eure-revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Urbano Regionales

Luis Eugenio Lira Frausto

Animal Behaviour

Matthew Orr

Kelechi Udeogu

Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal

Revista de APS

Isabel Cristina Gonçalves Leite

Adem Mohammed

Anatolia Antiqua

Christophe Bost

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Glenn McConkey

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

Steven Schild

H.p. Vasantha Rupasinghe

Revista Panorâmica

Victor A L V E S Santos

Archives of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery

Ximena Terra

Pericles Zouhair

Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

Marc Rayman

Nasir A Nasir

Physical Review B

Karsten Albe

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Blue Food Sovereignty Benefits Social-Ecological Resilience: A Case Study of Small-Scale Fisheries Co-Management and Mariculture in Samoa

“Blue” (aquatic) food systems have a vital role in providing nutrition, livelihoods, and food security for coastal communities, but addressing and evaluating issues of equity and social resilience continue to challenge small-scale fisheries management. We examine how marine aquaculture and co-management approaches that integrate traditional institutions can support food sovereignty for more equitable blue food systems. Interviews with stakeholders in 11 fishing communities in Samoa indicate that several benefits associated with food sovereignty are derived from co-managed village fish reserves. Reserves support biodiversity health and are a source of culturally valued seafoods that build food security, social capital, and sustainable livelihood opportunities for women. Local values, food systems, providers, and consumers are centered, though traditional hierarchies present challenges for equitable decision-making. Our findings demonstrate how incorporating food sovereignty into the operation and evaluation of fisheries co-management can aid in addressing equity and resilience.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats

Dimensions citation stats, published in, publication date, start / end page, related subject headings.

• 4401 Anthropology
• 4104 Environmental management
• 1601 Anthropology

Evaluating the effectiveness of coastal environmental management policies in China: The case of Bohai Sea

• Xiang, Jinzhao
• Cui, Tingwei
• Zhang, Qian
• Liu, Rongjie
• Zhao, Wenjing

With marine pollution issues becoming serious and widespread, a series of coastal environmental managemental policies are being carried out worldwide, the effectiveness of which requires comprehensive evaluation. Taking the Bohai Sea (BS) of China as an example, which has been plagued by serious ecological and environmental issues for decades due to terrestrial pollution discharge, this study explored and quantified, for the first time to our best knowledge, the variability of water quality after initiating a dedicated 3-year pollution control action (Uphill Battle for Integrated Bohai Sea Management, UBIBM, 2018–2020) implemented by China's central government, with two water quality indexes of water color (Forel-Ule index, FUI) and transparency (Secchi disk depth, Z SD , m) from satellite observations. During the UBIBM, a significant improvement in water quality was detected, characterized by a clearer and bluer BS, with Z SD and FUI improved by 14.1% and 3.2%, respectively, compared with the baseline period (2011–2017). In addition, an abrupt drop in the long-term record (2011–2022) of the coverage area of highly turbid waters (Z SD ≤2 m or FUI≥8) was found in 2018, which coincided with the start of the UBIBM, indicating that the water quality improvement may be attributed to the pollution alleviation of the UBIBM. Independent data of land-based pollution statistics also supported this deduction. (3) Compared with the previous two pollution control actions in the first decade of 21st century, UBIBM was proved to be the most successful one in terms of the achieved highest transparency and lowest FUI during the past two decades. Reasons for the achievement and implications to future pollution control are discussed for a more sustainable and balanced improvement in the coastal environment. This research provides a valuable example that satellite remote sensing can play a vital role in the management of coastal ecosystems by providing effective evaluation of pollution control actions.

• Coastal pollution;
• Environmental management;
• Secchi disk depth;
• Forel-Ule index;
• Ocean color;

Farming A Better Future: How Big-Picture Thinking About Regenerative Agriculture Can Help Fix Society’s Ills

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Written by Dr. Sara Scherr, EcoAgriculture Partners, and Dr. Kirsten Dunlop, EIT Climate-KIC

If roller coasters aren’t your thing, steer clear of agricultural commodities markets. Intense heat and rain have slammed West Africa’s cacao harvest, forcing cocoa prices to double in 2024. Intensifying hurricanes and disease have battered Florida’s citrus industry , leading to a decades-long slide in production. Climate change and land degradation are making it tough for farmers to provide some of our favorite indulgences. With these problems now starting to impact corn, rice and wheat—the three global staple crops—we face the prospect of cascading price hikes, market disruptions, deepening hunger and food insecurity, economic contractions and the political instability accompanying all of it.

Those of us who study the economics and sciences of modern agriculture, food systems and climate change have seen this volatility and systemic risk coming for years. Many have realized that regenerative agriculture and a holistic land stewardship approach called integrated landscape management (ILM) are among the most potent solutions. These natural solutions can sustain commodity production and ensure food, water and livelihood security. They can also restore the ecosystems that make agriculture possible.

Agriculture needs a new playbook

Agriculture is not in good shape overall. The sector contributes 20% of humanity’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizer overuse triggers some 405 marine dead zones in coastal waters worldwide. Massive plantings of single kinds of crops, pesticide application and agriculture-related deforestation are major contributors to the extinction of wildlife species. These realities are driving growing enthusiasm in many quarters for a transformative shift to regenerative farming.

Regenerative agriculture is both a process and an outcome. Farmers adopt practices such as growing cover crops and instituting mixed farming systems like agroforestry or integrated crop and livestock production. These evidence-based approaches rebuild soil health, protect water resources, restore biodiversity and strengthen communities. Researchers have found these methods benefit producers and nature while potentially helping humanity respond to climate change.

After an initial transition period, regenerative agricultural practices can make sound financial sense to farmers and supply chains through reduced input costs and reduced risks. One study estimated an up to 25% return on investment for farmers shifting from conventional to regenerative agriculture. For these reasons, regenerative agriculture is currently experiencing significant investment growth.

Harnessing landscape collaboration to scale regenerative agriculture

Yet farm-level regenerative management is just the beginning. The scale of environmental and social crises demands a more holistic approach to agricultural transformation, one that reflects its reliance and impacts on water, biodiversity, climate, economics and society. This involves a profound change in how we manage the land. We must reconceive our relationship with nature.

One strategic response is the rise of new long-term, place-based partnerships between farmers, businesses, environmental organizations, local governments, communities and indigenous peoples. We have learned there are four ways that such collaboratives can accelerate the regenerative transition. First, such partnerships can achieve more ambitious goals by uniting efforts across the landscape. Second, landscape actors can coordinate efforts to steward the larger ecosystems they rely on for food production, healthy lives and thriving nature. Third, partnerships can mobilize strategic allies beyond food and agribusiness sectors to accelerate food-system transformation, such as those working in tourism, nutrition, disaster preparedness, water and biodiversity who benefit from the regenerative transition. Fourth, they provide an ongoing platform for collaboration and innovation to manage the complexity, risks and costs of transitioning to regenerative practices.

For example, in Ohio—a major agriculture state—complex markets, low commodity prices and increasingly volatile weather have exacerbated crop losses and degraded the environment, including harmful algal blooms from farm runoff. At the same time, household food insecurity ranks well above the national average. The Ohio Smart Agriculture partnership used a collaborative landscape approach with strong farmer representation to devise a multipronged strategy for action. The initiative is working to make Ohio’s food system a state priority; diversify and sustainably intensify food, feed, fiber and fuel production; use institutional buying power to ramp up demand for local food; and implement landscape-scale climate-smart agriculture to abate agricultural runoff.

In the 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People initiative, we believe the best way to achieve that shift and the compounding impacts it will usher in is through ILM. At its heart, ILM is about strong, locally led partnerships that generate trust and a shared understanding of natural and socioeconomic processes in the landscape, including agriculture. Building on that foundation, these partnerships can define a long-term transformation strategy and adaptive action plans promoting synergies between public, private and community projects. ILM is not just a concept; it is a practical, proven approach and set of methods that extend regeneration’s usefulness beyond local farms to entire regions.

An agriculturally diverse and sustainable landscape in Southern California.

Landscape investments offer significant financial value

The widespread application of ILM is essential for achieving environmental, social and economic sustainability globally while empowering farmers and other local people to shape their futures. The switch to regenerative farming and landscape approaches at scale would boost humanity’s climate-change response. For example, r esearchers conclude that the world's soils could store up to 267 billion more tons of carbon, which could significantly reduce greenhouse gas levels. Meanwhile, landscapes with corridors of healthy vegetation linking regenerative farms, nature areas and urban greenways can manage water-related risks by absorbing and storing rainfall, mitigating flood risks while improving water quality.

The economic case for landscape-scale regeneration is compelling. In Germany , for instance, regenerative practices have the potential to boost farmers' profits by over 60% and add more than $9 billion annually from socio-ecological benefits​​. Moreover, regenerative agriculture investments could return over $10 trillion on a $700 billion investment over the next 30 years while mitigating nearly 170 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions. Coordinating farm and supply-chain projects with complementary projects in tourism, infrastructure, watershed management and nature restoration can increase profits and reduce investment risks.

Increasing compliance demands also make landscape-linked regenerative agriculture very attractive. Tighter government regulations, particularly from the European Union on climate and deforestation, are pushing companies toward practices that ensure the longevity of supply chains, a major focus of ILM’s value to business. Indeed, a new landscape finance industry is emerging to capitalize on this opportunity.

Numerous programs and projects by partners of the 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People have shown how ILM can empower communities and build social cohesion, improve food security and manage natural resources sustainably across large landscapes​.

However, mainstreaming regenerative agriculture and ILM is fraught with challenges due to the sector's fragmented nature, the vested role of intermediaries and the thin margins on which many farmers operate. Research, technical assistance and finance are still siloed. Overcoming these hurdles will require government support for landscape partnerships and aligning national and international trade and agricultural commodities policies. New financial mechanisms must be developed to support integrated efforts effectively.

Collective, coordinated action is critical to addressing climate change, preserving biodiversity and securing a sustainable future for all—particularly for those in marginalized communities who bear the brunt of environmental degradation and global warming. Only through such integrated efforts can we maintain the delicate balance of our ecosystems while continuing to enjoy everything that grows from healthy nature, water and soils.

This is a content marketing post from a Forbes EQ participant. Forbes brand contributors’ opinions are their own.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Coastal & Marine

AWWA’s 2024 Annual Conference & Expo – Stantec Presentation Schedule

May 08, 2024

Transforming our water future—one project at a time

June 10-13, 2024 Anaheim, California

This year’s American Water Works Association’s #ACE24 will highlight and celebrate the 50 th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Join our team in the heart of Orange County focusing on the challenges and innovations that are moving the industry forward and working to ensure safe and reliable water for all.

Here’s where you can find us:

Tuesday, June 11

3:30 PM – Holistic Approaches to Flood Mitigation Planning and Modeling Under Extreme Events and Climate Impacts (WRF 5084) Presenter: Summer Bundy

4:00 PM – Building Resilient and Sustainable Water Infrastructure in Jackson, MS: Insights from the Project Team Panel Presenter: Pat Brown , Kristen Whatley

Wednesday, June 12

8:30 AM – Coagulation: Fundamentals of Coagulants, Particles, and NOM Presenter: David Pernitsky

9:30 AM – Emergence & Feasibility of Water Energy Transfer (WET) Systems Presenter: Michael Thivierge

9:30 AM – Under Pressure: Design Considerations for PFAS Vessel and Media Specifications Presenter: Andrew Nishihara

10:30 AM – Tacna, AZ: A Case Study on Improving Water Quality and Resilience for Rural Communities Presenter: Loren Haug , Sarah Lucere

10:30 AM – Guess What? You are a Project Manager Presenter : Mark Graham

11:00 AM – Beyond Treatment: Holistic PFAS Implementation Considerations Presenter: Tyler Hadacek

2:30 PM – South Florida Water Management District LOWRP Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells: A Project Interview Presenter: Nycole Sharma

3:00 PM – Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Well Program: Long-Term Pumping Test Results Presenter: John Wu

3:30 PM – Pure Water Antelope Valley: A Critical Water Supply Project for a Large Disadvantaged Community Presenter: Kim Pugel

4:00 PM – Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Wells in Central Florida: Construction and Testing Presenter: Caroline Smith

Thursday, June 13

8:30 AM – Overcoming Challenges to Replace the City of Lewiston’s WTP Presenter: Bryan Black

9:30 AM – A Moving Target: PFAS Treatment Residuals Management Presenter: Liz Garvey

10:00 AM – Agua Pura: Adapting to Climate Change in Northern New Mexico Presenter: Patricia Bolliger

10:30 AM – Pipe Loop Studies Identify Corrosivity Impacts of a New Water Source and Possible Mitigation Poster Presenter : Atosa Vahdati Nikzad

11:45 AM – Water 2050 Ideas into Action: Creating our Water 2050 Future Presenter: Joe Jacangelo

1:30 PM – A Journey from Boil Water Advisory to Meeting Drinking Water Requirements: The Story of Lynn Lake Water Treatment Plant Presenter: Saibal Basu

1:30 PM – Small Systems Management Event Track Moderator: Stephanie Elliott

3:30 PM – Corrosion Control for Groundwaters: A Tale of Two Towns Presenter: Liz Garvey

4:30 PM – Catalyst or Breaking Point: Dechloramination Decision Presenters: Andrew Nishihara , Skylar Watnick

Transforming our Water Future

Delivering sustainable and resilient solutions for this most vital resource.