Building ‘blue’: An eco-engineering framework for foreshore developments

Mayer‐Pinto, Mariana; Johnston, Emma L.; Bugnot, Ana B.; Glasby, Tim M.; Airoldi, Laura; Mitchell, A. Graeme; Dafforn, Katherine A.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.039

Cited by 60 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…barnacles), which can shelter the structure from weathering and erosion through bioprotection (Perkol-Finkel & Sella, 2015). Conversely, while soft ecoengineering is advocated as the preferred approach from an ecological perspective Mayer-Pinto et al, 2017), the created habitat foremost needs to provide sufficient coastal protection into the future if this technique is to replace (or complement) artificial defences.…”

Section: Hard Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The diversity of terminologies in the literature that relate to actions inspired or supported by nature to solve environmental, social and economic problems may have introduced ambiguity around naturebased coastal defence (Nessh€ over et al, 2017). This includes 'nature-based solutions' (Nessh€ over et al, 2017), 'soft engineering' (Chapman & Underwood, 2011), 'nature-based features or infrastructure' (Bridges et al, 2015), 'green/blue infrastructure' (Mayer-Pinto et al, 2017) 'building with nature' (De Vriend, Van Koningsveld, & Aarninkhof, 2014) and 'living shorelines' (Bilkovic, Mitchell, Mason, & Duhring, 2016). In addition, restoration (defined as the recreation of habitat that was previously in a particular area, Elliott, Burdon, Hemingway, & Apitz, 2007) and habitat creation or enhancement, which is placing a different habitat within an area (Elliott et al, 2007) have both been included under nature-based shorelines (Bilkovic et al, 2016).…”

Section: Soft Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Morris

Konlechner

Ghisalberti

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

342

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Hard Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soft Eco-engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Morris

Konlechner

Ghisalberti

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

342

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knowledge of urban shoreline ecosystems and of strategies that effectively enhance ecosystem functioning and services should improve over time, as ecological enhancement and blue/green infrastructure projects become more common and are applied in a broader variety of urban marine environments (Pontee et al 2016). Developing and maintaining research collaborations with industry will be essential to ensure that lessons from each of these projects are shared and translated into subsequent designs and engineering solutions (Mayer-Pinto et al 2017). Further, partnerships with city governments and planners will be needed if ecological enhancement projects are to be applied concurrently with broader improvements in water quality and at a sufficient scale to have long-standing benefits, and then carefully monitored over time.…”

Section: Ecological Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an urban marine ecology: characterizing the drivers, patterns and processes of marine ecosystems in coastal cities

Todd

Heery

Loke

et al. 2019

Oikos

200

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human population density within 100 km of the sea is approximately three times higher than the global average. People in this zone are concentrated in coastal cities that are hubs for transport and trade – which transform the marine environment. Here, we review the impacts of three interacting drivers of marine urbanization (resource exploitation, pollution pathways and ocean sprawl) and discuss key characteristics that are symptomatic of urban marine ecosystems. Current evidence suggests these systems comprise spatially heterogeneous mosaics with respect to artificial structures, pollutants and community composition, while also undergoing biotic homogenization over time. Urban marine ecosystem dynamics are often influenced by several commonly observed patterns and processes, including the loss of foundation species, changes in biodiversity and productivity, and the establishment of ruderal species, synanthropes and novel assemblages. We discuss potential urban acclimatization and adaptation among marine taxa, interactive effects of climate change and marine urbanization, and ecological engineering strategies for enhancing urban marine ecosystems. By assimilating research findings across disparate disciplines, we aim to build the groundwork for urban marine ecology – a nascent field; we also discuss research challenges and future directions for this new field as it advances and matures. Ultimately, all sides of coastal city design: architecture, urban planning and civil and municipal engineering, will need to prioritize the marine environment if negative effects of urbanization are to be minimized. In particular, planning strategies that account for the interactive effects of urban drivers and accommodate complex system dynamics could enhance the ecological and human functions of future urban marine ecosystems.

show abstract

“…The ecological functioning of coastal artificial structures and their quality as a novel habitat for marine species have been an active research topic for almost three decades now, and technological advances, general frameworks and syntheses are being proposed to integrate ecological concepts in coastal development and foster its sustainability (Bishop et al, 2017; Dyson & Yocom, 2015; Mayer-Pinto et al, 2017; Perkol-Finkel, Hadary, Rella, Shirazi, & Sella, 2018). However, whether investigating biodiversity, colonization and ecological succession, community ecology, or species genetic diversity, so far the predominant approach to study artificial structures has been framed in the dualism typically contrasting alternative categories, such as artificial-natural, vegetated-unvegetated, hard-soft bottoms, impacted-pristine habitats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatially explicit modelling of kelp-grazer interactions: a seascape approach for effective habitat enhancement using artificial reefs

Ferrario

Suskiewicz

Johnson

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

141. Artificial structures are sprawling along the coast affecting the aspect and the functioning of 15 shallow coastal seascapes. For years, the ecology of artificial structures has been investigated 16 mainly in contrast to natural coastal habitats. However, it is increasingly emerging that structuring 17 processes, such as trophic interactions, can depend on properties of the surrounding landscape. 18Heterogeneity of coastal seafloor and habitats could thus play a major role in determining the 19 variability of ecological outcomes on artificial structures. 20Artificial reefs are being used in coastal areas in attempts to restore and enhance marine habitats 21 and communities, including large brown seaweed ("kelp"), to offset habitat loss and mitigate 22 coastal development impacts. The outcome of enhancement projects using artificial reefs have not 23 always been either consistent or positive. Overlooking the effect of strong ecological interactions 24 adds a high level of uncertainty and can undermine the success of these efforts. 25In Eastern Canada, top-down control exerted by green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus 26 droebachiensis) can seriously compromise the success of artificial reefs for kelp enhancement. 27Importantly, urchin interactions with macroalgae are likely to be influenced by the bottom 28 composition. A seascape approach could thus integrate behavior and habitat heterogeneity. 29 2. We investigated whether the local seascape could create zones of differential grazing risk for kelp 30 outplanting kelp (Alaria esculenta) on artificial blocks on an heterogenous bottom. Adopting a 31 spatially explicit framework, we determined how seascape affected the urchin use of the habitat 32 and used this information to map the grazing risk throughout the area.33 3. Kelp survival was a function of frequency of urchin presence throughout the study site. While 34 urchins avoided sandy patches, bottom composition and algal cover modulated the within-patch 35 urchin use of the habitat. This translated in the heterogeneity of grazing risk intensity.36 4. Synthesis and applications. The presence of discrete seascape features locally increased the 37 grazing risk for kelp by differentially affecting the urchin's usage of the habitat, even within the 38 same bottom patch. Incorporating this information when planning artificial reefs could minimize 39 the detrimental grazing risk thus increasing the rate of success and ensuring lasting results. 40 41 Keywords 42 Spatial; kelp; green sea urchin; artificial reef; survival; grazing risk 43 48 development and foster its sustainability (Bishop et al., 2017; Dyson & Yocom, 2015; Mayer-Pinto et 49 al., 2017; Perkol-Finkel, Hadary, Rella, Shirazi, & Sella, 2018). However, whether investigating 50 biodiversity, colonization and ecological succession, community ecology, or species genetic diversity, 51 so far the predominant approach to study artificial structures has been framed in the dualism typically 52 contrasting alternative categories, such as artificial-natural, vege...

show abstract

Building ‘blue’: An eco-engineering framework for foreshore developments

Cited by 60 publications

References 43 publications

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

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

Towards an urban marine ecology: characterizing the drivers, patterns and processes of marine ecosystems in coastal cities

Spatially explicit modelling of kelp-grazer interactions: a seascape approach for effective habitat enhancement using artificial reefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About