Coastal resilience surges as living shorelines reduce lateral erosion of salt marshes

Polk, Mariko A.; Gittman, Rachel K.; Smith, Charles S.; Eulie, Devon O.

doi:10.1002/ieam.4447

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of EWN supporting NNBF implementation include innovative dredging technologies and practices that can be used to sustain NNBFs, and the development of methods for quantifying the ecosystem services and engineering and flood risk reduction benefits provided by restored islands (Herman et al 2020;Polk et al 2022;Sella et al 2022). EWN is currently advancing practice for island creation and restoration as an NNBF measure that is enabled by the beneficial use of dredged sediment (Herman et al 2020;Davis et al 2022; Box 2).…”

Section: Re-envisioning Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Institutions to Connect Land and Water for Healthy Communities

Endter‐Wada

Sternlieb²,

Welsh

et al. 2022

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interconnected global environmental and societal risks threaten the health of human and ecological communities. Institutions are avenues through which people can mobilize to respond, but institutional landscapes are fragmented. We focus on the need for institutional change in environmental management and water services to better connect land and water in the United States. Using a historical institutionalist approach and insights from sustainability transitions research, we analyze four diverse examples of connecting land and water occurring across public and private institutions where people are putting innovative perspectives and principles into practice: National Environmental Policy Act, Engineering with Natureâ; Water Utilities as Anchor Institutions, and Growing Water Smart. Comparative analysis of these examples focuses on the particular risks these institutions are responding to, how each connects land and water to promote healthy communities, the institutional transformations that are occurring, how problems are being reframed, how leadership and mobilization are driving change, what tools help bridge multiple boundaries, and what new ways of knowing and action strategies are emerging. Our examples focus on transformations within and between institutions in recognition of their importance for driving larger system change. Findings reinforce previous research on the critical role of human agency and boundary spanning in facilitating and steering sustainability transitions.

show abstract

Section: Re-envisioning Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Institutions to Connect Land and Water for Healthy Communities

Endter‐Wada

Sternlieb²,

Welsh

et al. 2022

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Living shorelines may provide similar or better resistance to landward erosion compared to equivalent natural environments and hardened structures (Gittman et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2018). Because of their long‐term persistence and the ability of their living elements to repair and adapt to changing conditions, living shorelines can further promote lateral accretion of shoreline zones (Chowdhury et al, 2019; Polk et al, 2022). In addition to their protective value, living shorelines often have the added benefit of providing enhanced habitat to organisms and can have similar or greater species diversity, food web support and abundance of fishes and crustaceans (Gittman, Peterson, et al, 2016; Guthrie et al, 2022; Isdell et al, 2021; Toft et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intertidal Soundscapes of Hardened and Living Shorelines: A Case Study of Habitat Enhancement

Looby,

Reynolds,

McDonald

et al. 2024

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisms, such as fishes and invertebrates and including their larval stages, listen to underwater soundscapes to detect information about nearby habitats. Such soundscapes may be influenced by habitat degradation or enhancement, which can lead to acoustically mediated feedback loops affecting the overall ecosystem. Despite the importance of underwater sounds on ecological functioning, there have been limited studies documenting soundscapes of intertidal ecosystems and few, if any, of living shoreline soundscapes. Living shorelines would especially benefit from acoustically mediated effects for objectives like encouraging fish and invertebrate settlement. This case study used a Before‐After‐Control‐Impact design to sample soundscapes and nekton (i.e., fishes and mobile macroinvertebrates) at a living shoreline construction and a nearby hardened shoreline in Cedar Key, FL (USA). Diel soundscape patterns and acoustic attenuation at the two sites were also described a year following the living shoreline construction. In the acoustic sampling, the high frequency bands of both shorelines were dominated by invertebrate sounds that were influenced by season, site and time of day, while the low frequency band of the living shoreline was often dominated by a loud anthropogenic sound. About a year after the living shoreline installation—despite similar measured acoustic attenuation at both sites—the living shoreline featured louder sound pressure levels compared to the hardened shoreline, which may be particularly beneficial for promoting foundational species and other organism settlement. These results demonstrate that Gulf of Mexico intertidal habitats may have soundscape differences even within close proximity and that living shorelines may enhance acoustic characteristics in ways beneficial to continued shoreline development. This represents an important step in better understanding the relationships between habitat structures, nekton communities, and their associated soundscapes as well as the application of passive acoustic monitoring to improve coastal management and conservation.

show abstract

“…Shoreline armoring (i.e., hard, engineered structures used to stop erosion) replaces natural shoreline ecosystems (e.g., marshes or beaches) with hardened structures and substantially decreases the ecosystem services provided from these shoreline habitats, such as nutrient removal or wave attenuation (Bozek and Burdick, 2005;Bilkovic et al, 2006;Currin et al, 2010;Gittman et al, 2015). Alternatively, natural and nature-based infrastructure (e.g., living shorelines) can lessen shoreline erosion and flooding effects by utilizing natural ecosystem functions and ecosystem services, such as sedimentation, reducing storm damage, and marsh migration (Davis et al, 2015;Bilkovic et al, 2016;Smith et al, 2017;Polk et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property owner shoreline modification decisions vary based on their perceptions of shoreline change and interests in ecological benefits

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even under current sea level conditions, many communities are working to protect their coastlines against flooding and shoreline erosion. Coastal communities often protect their shorelines against excessive erosion by using armoring techniques (e.g., bulkheads, riprap). Yet hardened structures reduce many of the natural adaptive mechanisms present in coastal ecosystems and reduce the sustainability of the coastal system. In contrast, natural and nature-based features (e.g., living shorelines) can better protect coastal properties from storm damage and reduce erosion while also having the potential to adapt to new conditions. Since property owners are installing armoring structures more often than living shorelines, we sought to understand the factors motivating their shoreline modification decision. We surveyed property owners in Virginia, U.S. that applied for a shoreline modification permit. Most property owners, regardless of modification sought, perceive riprap revetment to be effective, able to withstand storm damage, and able to adapt to sea level rise. Interestingly, property owners that sought out living shorelines were not highly confident in living shorelines’ protection benefits. While most property owners perceived the ecological benefits of living shorelines, these benefits did not substantially impact the decision over what type of shoreline modification to implement. Our work highlights pathways that can improve coastal resilience given the important role that shoreline property owner decisions contribute to coastal community resiliency. Our results indicate there is a need to better engage property owners about the protection and adaptation benefits of living shorelines as their perceptions were not aligned with scientific assessments of living shorelines. Concurrently, coastal policies could be strengthened to support more natural approaches to shoreline management, as the more common armoring techniques are not resilient to sea level rise or storm damage.

show abstract

Coastal resilience surges as living shorelines reduce lateral erosion of salt marshes

Cited by 22 publications

References 52 publications

Transforming Institutions to Connect Land and Water for Healthy Communities

Transforming Institutions to Connect Land and Water for Healthy Communities

Intertidal Soundscapes of Hardened and Living Shorelines: A Case Study of Habitat Enhancement

Property owner shoreline modification decisions vary based on their perceptions of shoreline change and interests in ecological benefits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About