Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

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

  • Emily J. PowellEmail author
  • Megan C. Tyrrell
  • Andrew Milliken
  • John M. Tirpak
  • Michelle D. Staudinger
Open Access


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


Natural infrastructure Restoration Thresholds Sea level rise Coastal storms Ecosystem services 


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

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis of responses and quantitative tolerance thresholds related to amounts and rates of sea level rise along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean coasts for four habitat types: tidal marshes (TM, Open image in new window ), beaches/barrier islands (BB, Open image in new window ), oyster reefs (OR, Open image in new window ), and mangroves (M, Open image in new window ). The top figure shows locations where habitat responses and consequences to sea level rise have been observed or modeled across the geography; corresponding details are included in the table below. Icons were obtained from the Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (

This synthesis is based on a review of the literature using Web of Science and google scholar with consistent search terms that combined the habitat name and “threshold” with the search terms “sea level rise” and “storms”. Searches were conducted between February and August 2016

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

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

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

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

A selection of management approaches and their associated ecosystem services using tidal marshes, beaches and barrier islands, biogenic reefs, and mangroves as natural infrastructure to increase socio-ecological resilience to SLR and storms. Ecosystem services were categorized as: provisioning (♦), regulating (○), cultural (□), and supporting (●), as defined by MEA (2005). Provisioning refers to products obtained from ecosystems, like food and water; regulating describes benefits obtained from ecosystem regulation, such as climate-controlled processes; cultural describes non-material benefits from ecosystems, such as social heritage and a sense of place; and supporting describes the services needed to produce all other ecosystem services, e.g., nutrient and chemical cycling. All ecological benefits are considered supporting (for habitat) services

Management Approaches to Enhance Resilience to Sea Level Rise and Storms

Ecological Benefits

Human Community Benefits

Tidal Marsh Restoration: Tidal flows

● Restores natural functioning (such as by removing or mitigating a tidal restriction)

● Reduces marsh subsidence and collapse to keep pace with relative SLR

● Improves drainage to minimize flood impacts

● Supports native vegetation and increases water filtration

● Lowers threat and spread of invasive plants

● Improves habitat quality for a diversity of marsh-dependent species

● Moderates and restores natural salinity levels

○ Increases flood storage capacity

○ Preserves natural storm defenses

○ Improves water quality

○ Enhances climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage, known as blue carbon

□ Supports eco-tourism through fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing activities

● Provides habitat for recreational and commercial species

Tidal Marsh Restoration: Sediment augmentation

● Increases marsh persistence by supplementing accretion and elevation gain

● Helps reduce marsh subsidence and collapse by reversing wetland/marsh loss and prevents or delays conversion to open water

● Provides high and low marsh habitat for marsh-dependent species

○ Prolongs viability of marshes and associated flood risk and nutrient reduction benefits

○ Enhances climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage, known as blue carbon

● Provides habitat for recreational and commercial species

Beach/Barrier Island Restoration: Remove barriers to dynamic sediment movement and allow breaches to occur in beach, dune, and barrier island systems

● Preserves, restores, and/or creates foraging, spawning, resting, and stopover habitat for many species, including those that are endangered, threatened, and declining

● Improves dune habitat and persistence against ongoing erosion and flood risks

○ Preserves natural storm defenses, particularly as a multiple lines of defense approach

□ Enhances recreational opportunities

□ Supports eco-tourism through fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing activities

Oyster Reef Restoration

● Stabilizes shorelines by enhancing sediment deposition behind reefs

● Serves as natural breakwater to help adjacent marshes and shorelines withstand storm surge and erosion

● Provides nursery habitat for fish and invertebrates

● Improves nearshore water quality, which supports seagrass growth

● Improves ecosystem connectivity between restored and nearby natural reefs and as a refuge structure for mobile organisms

● Supports coastal biodiversity, especially of species that attach to shells or utilize the spaces between them

♦ Increases resilience of the local economy by providing habitat for commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish

♦ Increases oyster harvests

○ Preserves natural storm defenses

○ Slows shoreline retreat and erosion

○ Improves nearshore water quality

□ Increases real estate value for protected properties

● Provides water filtration and nutrient removal, reducing risk of algal blooms and hypoxia

Coral Reef Restoration

● Provides sediment retention

● Supports biodiversity and productivity

● Provides nursery habitat for many marine species

● Reduces wave energy and associated impacts on adjacent habitats

○ Preserves natural storm defenses

○ Enhances climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage, known as blue carbon

□ Supports eco-tourism through fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing activities

□ Enhances recreational opportunities

● Provides habitat for recreational and commercial species

Mangrove Restoration

● Supports biodiversity, especially of species that attach to roots or utilize the spaces between them

● Increases sediment capture and stabilization

● Promotes accretion and vertical land building to keep pace with SLR

♦ Increases resilience of the local economy by providing habitat for commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish

○ Preserves natural storm defenses

○ Enhances climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage, known as blue carbon

○ Improves water quality

□ Enhances recreational opportunities

Landscape Conservation Design: Habitat migration through site assessment, acquisition, and management

● Allows focal coastal habitats to respond dynamically to SLR and storm impacts by moving into adjacent suitable areas

● Secures additional long-term protection of habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife

● Reduces habitat loss and degradation, such as through coastal squeezing

● Facilitates and maintains the diversity and juxtaposition of habitats required by many species

○ Preserves natural storm defenses

○ Prevents development in vulnerable coastal areas

○ Provides coastal landowners an option to sell their land that would be risky to develop for residential or commercial purposes

Landscape Conservation Design: Expanded network of conservation areas

● Supports an ecologically-connected network for species and population persistence and resilience

● Facilitates shifts in species’ range, distribution, phenology and adaptation in response to changing conditions by providing corridors for migration and dispersal

● Facilitates and maintains the diversity and juxtaposition of habitats required by many species

● Secures freshwater and sediment inflows and increases tidal flows to support oysters, seagrasses, and other habitat-forming species

○ Increases flood storage capacity

□ Enhances recreational opportunities

□ Supports eco-tourism through fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing activities

□ Increases real estate value for nearby properties

Living Shorelines: Planting native or climate tolerant vegetation and non-biogenic materials (e.g., coir logs, rock sills)

● Stabilizes shorelines and reduces erosion

● Protects and/or creates habitat for submerged aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, and other estuarine species

● Provides food resources and roost sites for waterbirds

● Provides habitat continuum for fish and wildlife migration between aquatic and terrestrial habitats

● Supports habitat migration within the shore zone and inland

● Reduces or reverses salt marsh habitat loss and degradation

● Improves water quality

● Provides attenuation benefits for boat wakes and storm driven waves

♦ Increases resilience of the local economy by providing habitat for commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish

○ Preserves natural storm defenses

○ Enhances climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage, known as blue carbon, if vegetation based (as opposed to cement or other structural material)

○ Reduces repair/maintenance costs after storms as natural systems have the capacity to self-repair

□ Improves water quality

□ Supports eco-tourism through fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing activities

□ Enhances recreational opportunities

□ Increases real estate value for protected properties

Facilitated Re-Location: Retreat from coasts (e.g., shoreline setbacks, rolling easements)

● Helps protect coastal ecosystems by reducing anthropogenic impacts such as from structures that inhibit dynamic responses of habitats (e.g., shoreline armoring) and from runoff that can increase water pollution

● Enables the natural migration of the shoreline up to a point by reducing impediments from the built environment, if based on long-term estimates of erosion or SLR

● Preserves habitat for vulnerable species, such as by prohibiting new development or construction within a certain distance from the coast

○ Steers development away from high-risk areas

○ Reduces flood risks and impacts to structures for a longer period of time (in areas with fixed setbacks or rolling easements)

□ Lowers flood insurance costs in some situations through FEMA’s Community Rating System

□ Provides aesthetic improvements and increased views due to relocated structures

□ Improves emergency management by reducing evacuations

□ Provides private landowners with some flexibility in the use of their land if implemented through rolling easements, except construction of shoreline stabilization structures, though the landowner will incur costs due to erosion and flooding from encroaching shoreline

□ Preserves public access along eroding beaches for a longer period of time than would otherwise occur

Open Space Preservation: Preserve and restore natural open spaces through buyouts, acquisitions, and management

● Allows for the migration of marshes, mangroves and beaches in response to SLR

● Provides additional habitat protection for vulnerable species

♦ Results in higher real estate values for adjacent properties

○ Reduces flood risks and impacts to structures by preventing development in hazard-prone areas

○ Increases water storage capacity for flood risk reduction in neighboring areas

□ Lowers flood insurance costs in some situations through FEMA’s Community Rating System

□ Provides aesthetic improvements and increased views due to fewer structures

Land Use Planning: Incorporate future conditions to extend current land use planning horizons

● Informs actions that address the long-term impacts of SLR and coastal storms on species and habitats

● Supports the long-term integrity and functioning of coastal habitats

○ Steers development away from high-risk areas

□ Minimizes maintenance, augmentation costs over a structure’s design life

□ Facilitates planning habitat restoration and management projects, especially for selecting appropriate sites for action

○ Lowers flood insurance costs in some situations through FEMA’s Community Rating System

Many of the natural infrastructure solutions and adaptation strategies listed in Table 2 are included in the Coastal Ecosystems Background Paper for the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, online at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected coastal management actions using grey, natural and hybrid infrastructure and corresponding estimates of their value as ecosystem services for coastal storm protection

Coastal management approach

Ecosystem benefit / value estimates (USD, %, or surge protection in m)

Geographic location or extent of derived benefits

1. Natural Infrastructure

a. Tidal Marsh Restoration

1. $23.2 billion annually in storm protection services based on an average swath of wetland area of 100 km × 100 km (Costanza et al. 2008)

2. $625 million in avoided flood damages (Narayan et al. 2017)

3. 16% reduction in average annual flood losses (Narayan et al. 2017)

4. A 1% increase in wetland continuity results in an 8–11% reduction in storm surge; a 0.1 increase in the wetland-water ratio per meter will reduce residential flood damages by $99 to $133 (Barbier 2013)

1. Model-based estimates from 34 US landfalling hurricanes since 1980

2. 12 coastal states from Maine to North Carolina, USA

3. Ocean County, New Jersey, USA

4. 12 locations along a transect in the Caernarvon Basin in southeastern Louisiana, USA

a. Beach / Barrier Island Restoration

1. Total value of $141 million annually in storm protection services (2013 dollars, replacement cost equivalent) (Taylor et al. 2015)

2. As dune plant density increases over time from 25% to 85%, increasingly higher waves of 6.5 m to 13 m, respectively, are required to overtop the dune (Barbier et al. 2008b)

1. Mustang and North Padre Islands, Texas, USA

2. Oregon coast, USA

b. Mangrove Restoration

1. Peak surge levels reduced by 0.4–0.5 m per kilometer of forest width in Florida (Zhang et al. 2012)

2. Provides between $200,000 and $900,000 per hectare annually in total products and services (Wells et al. 2006)

1. Gulf Coast of South Florida, USA, from Sanibel Island to Key West

2. Global estimate

c. Oyster Reef Restoration

1. Economic value of services from restored and protected oyster reefs, excluding oyster harvesting, is between $5,500 and $99,000 per hectare per year (Grabowski et al. 2012)

2. Two oyster reef projects with a total length of 5.8 km will produce 51%–90% reduction in wave height and 76%–99% reduction in wave energy at the shore (Kroeger 2012)

1. Average of US estimates based on a literature synthesis

2. Two restoration sites in Mobile Bay, Alabama, USA

d. Coral Reef Restoration

1. Provides between $100,000 and $600,000 per square km annually in total products and services (Wells et al. 2006)

2. Coral reefs reduce wave energy by an average of 97% across approximately 800 m of a shoreline transect consisting of a reef crest and reef flat, which translates to a 64% reduction in wave height (Ferrario et al. 2014)

1. Global estimate

2. Meta-analysis covering reefs across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans

2. Grey Infrastructure

a. Storm Surge Barriers, Levees, and Seawalls

1. $234 million (2013 dollars) in avoided flood damages from Hurricane Alicia in 1983 (NRC 2014)

2. Hurricane barriers can prevent roughly $96 million (2013 dollars) in flood and storm damages (NRC 2014)

3. Typical design standards are for protection against a 100-year storm, corresponding to an average surge level of 3–6 m and wave height of 1–2.5 m (Jonkman et al. 2013)

1. Galveston, Texas, USA

2. Stamford, Connecticut, USA

3. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

3. Hybrid Approaches

b. Living Shorelines

1. 90% reduction in wave heights within 20 m of the marsh edge from Spartina alterniflora dominated salt marshes (Knutson et al. 1982)

2. One-year-old living shorelines reduced wave energy by up to 67% from boat wakes (Manis et al. 2015)

1. Model-based simulations and field tests in North Carolina, USA

2. Mosquito Lagoon estuary, Florida, USA

Natural infrastructure

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

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

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

Grey infrastructure

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

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

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

Hybrid approaches

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

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

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

The future of natural infrastructure: opportunities and limitations

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

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

Preliminary, yet rapidly, maturing information on natural infrastructure and hybrid approaches can be used to take action and integrate their benefits into resilience planning guidelines. Here, we present potential actions that can increase information and reduce uncertainty around the use of natural infrastructure in coastal planning processes.
  1. 1)

    Substantially increase performance evaluation and widespread monitoring of natural infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

  1. 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. 3)

    Increase coordination and planning around socio-ecological resilience goals.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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


  1. Abt Associates (2014) Estimating the change in ecosystem service values from coastal restoration. Prepared by Abt Associates for the Center for American Progress and Oxfam America, 130 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Abt Associates (2015) Developing socio-economic metrics to measure DOI hurricane Sandy project and program outcomes. Prepared for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 125 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Abt Associates (2016) Efforts to develop standardized socio-economic and ecological performance metrics for natural infrastructure. Presentation for the National Oceanic and Administration’s Social Coastal Forum. S. Taylor, K. Penn, and R. Bennett (presenters). Online at:
  4. Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Rockström J (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309:1036–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni E, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Chang 93:335–354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson MG, Barnett A (2017) Resilient coastal sites for conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. 280 pGoogle Scholar
  7. Arkema KK, Guannel G, Verutes G, Wood SA, Guerry A, Ruckelshaus M, Kareiva P, Lacayo M, Silver JM (2013) Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat Clim Chang.
  8. Armitage AR, Highfield WE, Brody SD, Louchouarn P (2015) The contribution of mangrove expansion to salt marsh loss on the Texas Gulf Coast. PLoS One 10(5):e0125404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Teaming with Wildlife Committee, State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Best Practices Working Group (2012) Best practices for state wildlife action plans—voluntary guidance to states for revision and implementation. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, 80 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Baggett LP, Powers SP, Brumbaugh RD, Coen LD, DeAngelis BM, Greene JK, Hancock BT, Morlock SM, Allen BL, Breitburg DL, Bushek D, Grabowski JH, Grizzle RE, Grosholz ED, La Peyre MK, Luckenback MW et al (2015) Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration. Restor Ecol 23(6):737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barbier EB (2013) Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and restoration: progress and challenges. Resources 2:213–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, Primavera J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA, Stoms DM, Kennedy CJ et al (2008a) Coastal ecosystem–based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319:321–323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, Primavera J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA, Stoms DM, Kennedy CJ et al (2008b) Supporting online material for coastal ecosystem–based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319:321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barbier EB, Georgiou IY, Enchelmeyer B, Reed DJ (2013) The value of wetlands in protecting Southeast Louisiana from hurricane storm surges. PLoS One 8(3):e58715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bartuszevige AM, Taylor K, Daniels A, Carter MF (2016) Landscape design: integrating ecological, social, and economic considerations into conservation planning. Wildl Soc Bull 40(3):411–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bianchi TS, Allison MA, Zhao J, Li X, Comeaux RS, Feagin RA, Kulawardhana RW (2013) Historical reconstruction of mangrove expansion in the Gulf of Mexico: linking climate change with carbon sequestration in coastal wetlands. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 119(1):7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bilkovic DM, Mitchell M, Mason P, Duhring K (2016) The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. Coast Manag 44(3):161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bin O, Dumas C, Poulter B, Whitehead J (2007) Measuring the impacts of climate change on North Carolina coastal resources. Final report prepared for National Commission on Energy Policy, Washington, DC, 101 pGoogle Scholar
  20. Bridges TS, Wagner PW, Burks-Copes KA, Bates ME, Collier Z, Fischenich CJ, Gailani JZ, Leuck LD, Piercy CD, Rosati JD, Russo EJ, Shafer DJ, Suedel BC, Vuxton EA, Wamsley TV (2015) Use of natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for coastal resilience. Final Report, ERDC SR-15-X. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  21. Center for Coastal Resources Management [CCRM] (2014) Living shoreline implementation: challenges and solutions. Rivers & Coast (newsletter of the Center for Coastal Resources Management), Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2014). Available at:
  22. Costanza R, Perez-Maqueo O, Martinez ML, Sutton P, Anderson SJ, Mulder K (2008) The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37(4):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Couvillion BR, Beck H (2013) Marsh collapse thresholds for coastal Louisiana estimated using elevation and vegetation index data. In: Brock, J.C., J.A. Barras, and S.J. Williams (eds.), Understanding and Predicting Change in the Coastal Ecosystems of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. J Coastal Res, Special Issue (63), p. 58–67Google Scholar
  24. Couvillion BR, Barras JA, Steyer GD, Sleavin W, Fischer M, Beck H, Trahan N, Griffin B, Heckman D (2011) Land area change in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. pamphletGoogle Scholar
  25. Craft C, Clough J, Ehman J, Joye S, Park R, Pennings S, Guo H, Machmuller M (2009) Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 7.
  26. Currin CA, Chappell WS, Deaton A (2010) Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: The living shoreline approach in North Carolina. In: Shipman, H., M.N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K.L. Fresh, and R.S. Dinicola (eds.), 2010: Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5254, p. 91–102Google Scholar
  27. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18:598–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dahl KA, Spanger-Siegried E, Caldas A, Udvardy S (2017) Effective inundation of continental United States communities with 21st century sea-level rise. Elem Sci Anth 5:37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Deegan LA, Johnson DS, Warren RS, Peterson BJ, Fleeger JW, Fagherazzi S, Wollheim WM (2012) Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490:388–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, Dugan J, Jones A, Lastra M, Scapini F (2009) Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 81:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Department of the Interior (DOI) Metrics Expert Group (2015) Recommendations for assessing the effects of the DOI Hurricane Sandy Mitigation and Resilience Program on ecological system and infrastructure resilience in the Northeast coastal region. Report for the Department of the Interior, 69 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Donnelly JP, Bertness MD (2001) Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. PNAS 98(25):14218–14223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Doody J, (2004) ’Coastal squeeze‘—an historical perspective. J Coast Conserv 10(1):129–138Google Scholar
  34. Enwright NM, Griffith KT, Osland MJ (2015) Incorporating future change into current conservation planning—Evaluating tidal saline wetland migration along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast under alternative sea-level rise and urbanization scenarios: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 969. Online at:
  35. Erwin RM, Cahoon DR, Prosser DJ, Sanders GM, Hensel P (2006) Surface elevation dynamics in vegetated Spartina marshes versus Unvegetated tidal ponds along the mid-Atlantic Coast, USA, with implications to Waterbirds. Estuar Coast 29(1):96–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fagherazzi S, Mariotti G, Wiberg PL, McGlathery KJ (2013) Marsh collapse does not require sea level rise. Oceanography 26(3):70–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feagin RA, Sherman DJ, Grant WE (2005) Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats. Front Ecol Environ 3(7):359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ferrario F, Beck MW, Storlazzi CD, Micheli F, Shepard CC, Airoldi L (2014) The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nat Commun 5:3794. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Field CD (1995) Impact of expected climate change on mangroves. Hydrobiologia 295:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fisichelli NA, Schuurman GW, Hoffman CH (2016) Is ‘resilience’ maladaptive? Towards an accurate lexicon for climate change adaptation. Environ Manag 57:753. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Foley MM, Martone RG, Fox MD, Kappel CV, Mease LA, Erickson AL, Halpern BS, Selkoe KA, Taylor P, Scarborough C (2015) Using ecological thresholds to inform resource management: current options and future possibilities. Front Mar Sci, 2(95).
  42. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Galbraith H, Jones R, Park RA, Clough JS, Herrod-Julius S, Harrington B, Page G (2002) Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ganju NK, Defne Z, Kirwan ML, Fagherazzi S, D’Alpaos A, Carniello L (2017) Spatially integrative metrics reveal hidden vulnerability of microtidal salt marshes. Nature.
  45. Gedan KB, Kirwan ML, Wolanski E, Barbier EB, Silliman BR (2010) The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim Chang.
  46. Gilman EL, Ellison J, Duke NC, Field C (2008) Threats to mangroves from climate change and adaptation options. Aquat Bot 89(2):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gittman RK, Popowich AM, Bruno JF, Peterson CH (2014) Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads during a category 1 hurricane. Ocean Coast Manag 102:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grabowski JH, Brumbaugh RD, Conrad RF, Keeler AG, Opaluch JJ, Peterson CH, Piehler MF, Powers SP, Smyth AR (2012) Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience 62(10):900–909. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Griggs GB (2005) The impacts of coastal armoring. Shore Beach 73(1):13–22Google Scholar
  50. Grimm NB, Staudinger MD, Staudt A, Carter SL, Chapin FS III, Kareiva P, Ruckelshaus M, Stein BA (2013) Climate-change impacts on ecological systems: introduction to a US assessment. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):456–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grimm NB, Groffman P, Staudinger M, Tallis H (2016) Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: process and prospects for sustained assessment. Clim Chang 135:97–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (2013) Initial comprehensive plan: restoring the gulf coast’s ecosystem and economy. Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, 22 p.Google Scholar
  53. Gutierrez BT, Williams SJ, Thieler ER (2007) Potential for shoreline changes due to sea-level rise along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1278. Web only, available at
  54. Hill K (2015) Coastal infrastructure: a typology for the next century of adaptation to sea-level rise. Front Ecol Environ 13(9):468–476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. iCASS (2016) Best practices for LCC landscape conservation designs. Discussion draft of workshop in St. Louis, MO. Online at:
  56. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jahn J (2016) Site assessment & project performance monitoring: the importance of standardization for the development of the N-NBF Practice. GreenVest. Presentation made at the Nature-Based Solutions to Enhance Coastal Resilience Workshop, hosted by National Wildlife Federation on June 28, 2016Google Scholar
  58. Jerath M, Bhat M, Rivera-Monroy VH, Castaneda-Moya E, Simard M, Twilley RR (2016) The role of economic, policy, and ecological factors in estimating the value of carbon stocks in Everglades mangrove forests, South Florida, USA. Environ Sci Pol 66:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jonkman SN, Hillen MM, Nicholls RJ, Kanning W, van Ledden M (2013) Costs of adapting coastal Defences to sea-level rise – new estimates and their implications. J Coast Res 29(5):1212–1226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kearney MS, Turner RE (2016) Microtidal marshes: can these widespread and fragile marshes survive increasing Climate–Sea level variability and human action? J Coast Res 32(3):686–699. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kirwan ML, Temmerman S, Skeehan EE, Guntenspergen GR, Fagherazzi S (2016) Overestimation of marsh vulnerability to sea level rise. Nat Clim Chang 6:253–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Knutson PL, Brochu RA, Seelig WN, Inskeep M (1982) Wave dampening in Spartina alterniflora marshes. Wetlands 2(1):87–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kraus NC, Pilkey OH (1988) The effects of seawalls on the beach. J Coast Res, Special Issue 4:1–28Google Scholar
  64. Kroeger T (2012) Dollars and sense: economic benefits and impacts from two oyster reef restoration projects in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The Nature Conservancy 110 p.Google Scholar
  65. Kroeger KD, Crooks S, Moseman-Valtierra S, Tang J (2017) Restoring tides to reduce methane emissions in impounded wetlands: a new and potent blue carbon climate change intervention. Nature.
  66. Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Anderson S and Sutton P (2017) The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosyst Serv, 26:289–301.
  67. La Peyre MK, Serra K, Joyner TA, Humphries A (2015) Assessing shoreline exposure and oyster habitat suitability maximizes potential success for sustainable shoreline protection using restored oyster reefs. PeerJ 3:e1317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lentz EE, Thieler ER, Plant NG, Stippa SR, Horton RM, Gesch DB (2016) Evaluation of dynamic coastal response to sea-level rise modifies inundation likelihood. Nat Clim Change.
  69. Lott CA, Fischer RA, Pashley DN (2007) Towards the integration of federal dredging and beach nourishment activities with North American coastal bird conservation programs. Papers and Presentations, Research Gate, 355–364Google Scholar
  70. Manis JE, Garvis SK, Jachec SM et al (2015) Wave attenuation experiments over living shorelines over time: a wave tank study to assess recreational boating pressures. J Coast Conserv 19(1).
  71. MARCO and NWF (2017) Working towards a robust monitoring framework for natural and nature-based features in the Mid-Atlantic using citizen science. Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean and National Wildlife Federation, 23 pGoogle Scholar
  72. Martin TG, Watson JEM (2016) Intact ecosystems provide best defence against climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:122–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration [MA DER] (2012) Economic impacts of ecological restoration in Massachusetts: Summary of Report Findings. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological Restoration, prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., 35 pGoogle Scholar
  74. Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration [MA DER] (2014) Estimates of ecosystem service values from ecological restoration projects in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological Restoration, prepared by ICF International, 40 pGoogle Scholar
  75. Mawdsley JR, O’Malley R, Ojima DS (2009) A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 23(5):1080–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Bjork M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman BR (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9(10):552–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Melillo JM, Richmond Terese (TC), Yohe GW, (Eds), 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: the Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program., 841 pp.
  78. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trend. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 80Google Scholar
  79. Morelli TL, Daly C, Dobrowski SZ, Dulen DM, Ebersole JL, Jackson ST et al (2016) Managing climate change Refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS One 11(8):e0159909. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Morris JT, Sundareshwar PV, Nietch CT, Kjerfve B, Cahoon DR (2002) Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83(10):2869–2877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Narayan S, Beck MW, Reguero BG, Losada IJ, van Wesenbeeck B, Pontee N et al (2016) The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based Defences. PLoS One 11(5):e0154735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Narayan S, Beck MW, Wilson P, Thomas CJ, Guerrero A, Shepard CC, Reguero BG, Franco G, Ingram JC, Trespalacios D (2017) The value of coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA. Nature.
  83. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2010) Adapting to climate change: a planning guide for state coastal managers. NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 138 p. Online at:
  84. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2015) A Strategy for a healthy Gulf of Mexico: resilience through ecosystem restoration, 10 p.Google Scholar
  85. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2016) Guide for considering climate change in coastal conservation. NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 54 p.Google Scholar
  86. National Research Council of the National Academies [NRC] (2007) Mitigating shore erosion along sheltered coasts. National Research Council of The National Academies, Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, D.C., 189 pGoogle Scholar
  87. National Research Council of the National Academies [NRC] (2014) Reducing coastal risk on the east and gulf coasts. Committee on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science Engineering and Planning: Coastal Risk Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, Ocean Studies Board, and Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council.Google Scholar
  88. National Science and Technology Council (2015) Ecosystem-Service Assessment: Research needs for coastal green infrastructure. Product of the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability of the National Science and Technology Council, 48 pGoogle Scholar
  89. Nelson EJ, Kareiva P, Ruckelshaus M, Arkema K, Geller G, Girvetz E, Goodrich D, Matzek V, Pinksy M, Reid W, Saunders M, Semmens D, Tallis H (2013) Climate change’s impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):483–493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Olander L, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire L, Polasky S1, Urban D, Boyd J, Wainger L, Palmer M (2015) Best practices for integrating ecosystem services into federal decision making. Durham: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University.
  91. Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Craft C, Fourqurean JW, Kauffman JB, Marba N, Megonigal P et al (2012) Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 7(9):e43542. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Powell EJ, Tyrrell MC, Milliken A, Tirpak JM, Staudinger MD (2017) A synthesis of thresholds for focal species along the U.S. Atlantic and gulf coasts: a review of research and applications. Ocean Coast Manage 148(1):75–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Raposa KB, Weber RLJ, Ekberg MC, Ferguson W (2015) Vegetation dynamics in Rhode Island salt marshes during a period of Accelerating Sea level rise and Extreme Sea level events. Estuar Coast.
  94. Raposa KB, Wasson K, Smith E, Crooks JA, Delgado P, Fernald SH, Ferner MC, Helms A, Hice LA, Mora JW, Puckett B, Sanger D, Shull S, Spurrier L, Stevens R, Lerberg S (2016) Assessing tidal marsh resilience to sea-level rise at broad geographic scales with multi-metric indices. Biol Conserv 204:263–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Reguero BG, Beck MW, Bresch DN, Calil J, Meliane I (2018) Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: a case study from the Gulf coast of the United States. PLoS One 13(4):e0192132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Restore America’s Estuaries [RAE] (2015) Living shorelines: from barriers to opportunities. Arlington, VA, 55 pGoogle Scholar
  97. Ridge JT, Rodriguez AB, Fodrie RJ, Lindquist NL, Brodeur MC, Coleman SE, Grabowski JH, Theuerkauf EJ (2015) Maximizing oyster-reef growth supports green infrastructure with accelerating sea-level rise. Sci Rep 5:14785. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schuster E, Doerr P (2015) A guide for incorporating ecosystem service valuation into coastal restoration projects. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Chapter. Delmont, NJ., 79 pGoogle Scholar
  99. Scyphers SB, Powers SP, Heck KL Jr, Byron D (2011) Oyster reefs as natural breakwaters mitigate shoreline loss and facilitate fisheries. PLoS One 6(8):e22396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Shepard CC, Agostini VN, Gilmer B, Allen T, Stone J, Brooks W, Beck MW (2012) Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island. Nat Hazards 60(2):727–745.
  101. Shriver WG, Wiest WA (2013) Working paper on incorporating climate change with conservation planning: a case study for tidal marsh bird conservation in Delaware, USA. K.D. Messer (ed.). APEC Research Reports, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Delaware, 30 pGoogle Scholar
  102. Sims SA, Seavey JR, Curtin CG (2013) Room to move? Threatened shorebird habitat in the path of sea level rise - dynamic beaches, multiple users, and mixed ownership: a case study from Rhode Island, USA. J Coast Conserv 17:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Small-Lorenz SL, Stein BA, Schrass K, Holstein DN, Mehta AV (2016) Natural defenses in action: harnessing nature to protect our communities. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation, 44 pGoogle Scholar
  104. Solomon JA, Donnelly MJ, Walters LJ (2014) Effects of sea level rise on the intertidal oyster Crassostrea virginica by field experiments. J Coast Res SI 68:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Staudinger MD, Morelli TL, Bryan AM (2015) Integrating climate change into northeast and midwest state wildlife action plans. Department of the Interior Northeast Climate Science Center Report, Amherst, Massachusetts, 52 pGoogle Scholar
  106. Stein BA, Staudt A, Cross MS, Dubois NS, Enquist C, Griffis R, Hansen LJ, Hellmann JJ, Lawler JJ, Nelson EJ, Pairis A (2013) Preparing for and managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):502–510. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Stein BA, Glick P, Edelson N, Staudt A (eds) (2014) Climate-smart conservation: putting adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 272 pGoogle Scholar
  108. Sutton-Grier AE, Wowk K, Bamford H, (2015) Future of our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystems. Environ Sci Policy, 51:137–148.
  109. Taylor EB, Gibeaut JC, Yoskowitz DW, Starek MJ (2015) Assessment and monetary valuation of the storm protection function of beaches and Foredunes on the Texas coast. J Coast Res 31(5):1205–1216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Temmerman S, Kirwan ML (2015) Building land with a rising sea: cost-efficient nature-based solutions can help to sustain coastal societies. Science 349(6248):588–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Temmerman S, Meire P, Bouma TJ, Herman PMJ, Ysebaert T, De Vriend HJ (2013) Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] (2016) Effective monitoring to evaluate ecological restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 266. Google Scholar
  113. Titus JG, Anderson KE, Cahoon KR, Gesch DB, Gill SK, Gutierrez BT, Thieler ER, Williams SJ (2009) Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on the Mid-Atlantic region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1, 320 pGoogle Scholar
  114. Torio DD, Chmura GL (2013) Impacts of sea level rise on marsh as fish habitat. Estuar Coast.
  115. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (2013) Coastal risk reduction and resilience. CWTS 2013–3. Washington, DC: Directorate of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersGoogle Scholar
  116. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (2014) Climate change adaptation plan and report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USACE Climate Preparedness and Resilience Steering Committee, 53 pGoogle Scholar
  117. U.S. Climate Change Science Program [CCSP] (2009) Thresholds of climate change in ecosystems. Fagre, D.B., C.W. Charles, C.D. Allen, C. Birkeland, F.S. Chapin III, P.M. Groffman, G.R. Guntenspergen, A.K. Knapp, A.D. McGuire, P.J. Mulholland, D.P.C. Peters, D.D. Roby, and George Sugihara. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 86 p.Google Scholar
  118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (2009) Synthesis of adaptation options for coastal areas. Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Ready Estuaries Program. EPA 430-F-08-024Google Scholar
  119. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2011) Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Merritt Island NWR. USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, Conservation Biology Program, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  120. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2016) Building a stronger coast: hurricane Sandy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Updated July 2016, Accessed August 2016. Online at:
  121. Valle-Levinson A, Dutton A, Martin JB (2017) Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern United States. Geophys Res Lett 44.
  122. Walles B, Fodrie FJ, Nieuwhof S, Jewell OJD, Herman PMJ, Ysebaert T (2016) Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration should include tidal emersion: reply to Baggett et al. Restor Ecol 24(1):4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wamsler C, Niven L, Beery TH, Bramryd T, Ekelund N, Jönsson KI, Osmani A, Palo T, Stålhammar S (2016) Operationalizing ecosystem-based adaptation: harnessing ecosystem services to buffer communities against climate change. Ecol Soc 21(1):31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Watson EB, Oczkowski AJ, Wigand C, Hanson AR, Davey EW, Crosby SC, Johnson RL, Andrews HM (2014) Nutrient enrichment and precipitation changes do not enhance resiliency of salt marshes to sea level rise in the northeastern U.S. Clim Chang 125:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Watson EB, Andrews HM, Fischer A, Cencer M, Coiro L, Kelley S, Wigand C (2015) Growth and photosynthesis responses of two co-occurring marsh grasses to inundation and varied nutrients. Botany 93:671–683. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wells S, Ravilous C, Corcoran E, 2006: In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK, 33 pGoogle Scholar
  127. Weston NB (2014) Declining sediments and rising seas: an unfortunate convergence for tidal wetlands. Estuar Coast 37(1):1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Yando ES, Osland MJ, Willis JM, Day RH, Krauss KW, Hester MW (2016) Salt marsh-mangrove ecotones: using structural gradients to investigate the effects of woody plant encroachment on plant–soil interactions and ecosystem carbon pools. J Ecol 104:1020–1031. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zhang KQ, Liu H, Li Y, Xu H, Shen J, Rhome J, Smith TJ III (2012) The role of mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 102–103:11–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceHadleyUSA
  2. 2.National Wildlife Federation, Gulf of Mexico Restoration ProgramAustinUSA
  3. 3.Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research ReserveWaquoitUSA
  4. 4.Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office and Western New England Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEssex JunctionUSA
  5. 5.Gulf Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLafayetteUSA
  6. 6.DOI Northeast Climate Adaptation Science CenterUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations