An official website of the United States government
Abstract BackgroundAnthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten the capacity of ecosystems to deliver a variety of services, including protecting coastal communities from hazards like flooding and erosion. Human interventions aim to buffer against or overcome these threats by providing physical protection for existing coastal infrastructure and communities, along with added ecological, social, or economic co-benefits. These interventions are a type of nature-based solution (NBS), broadly defined as actions working with nature to address societal challenges while also providing benefits for human well-being, biodiversity, and resilience. Despite the increasing popularity of NBS for coastal protection, sometimes in lieu of traditional hardened shorelines (e.g., oyster reefs instead of bulkheads), gaps remain in our understanding of whether common NBS interventions for coastal protection perform as intended. To help fill these knowledge gaps, we aim to identify, collate, and map the evidence base surrounding the performance of active NBS interventions related to coastal protection across a suite of ecological, physical, social, and economic outcomes in salt marsh, seagrass, kelp, mangrove, shellfish reef, and coral reef systems. The resulting evidence base will highlight the current knowledge on NBS performance and inform future uses of NBS meant for coastal protection. MethodsSearches for primary literature on performance of NBS for coastal protection in shallow, biogenic ecosystems will be conducted using a predefined list of indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, and organizational databases and websites, as well as an online search engine and novel literature discovery tool. All searches will be conducted in English and will be restricted to literature published from 1980 to present. Resulting literature will be screened against set inclusion criteria (i.e., population, intervention, outcome, study type) at the level of title and abstract followed by full text. Screening will be facilitated by a web-based active learning tool that incorporates user feedback via machine learning to prioritize articles for review. Metadata will be extracted from articles that meet inclusion criteria and summarized in a narrative report detailing the distribution and abundance of evidence surrounding NBS performance, including evidence clusters, evidence gaps, and the precision and sensitivity of the search strategy.
more »
« less
Evidence on the performance of nature-based solutions interventions for coastal protection in biogenic, shallow ecosystems: a systematic map
Abstract BackgroundCombined impacts from anthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten coastal ecosystems and their capacity to protect communities from hazards. One approach towards improving coastal protection is to implement “nature-based solutions” (NBS), which are actions working with nature to benefit nature and humans. Despite recent increases in global implementation of NBS projects for coastal protection, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of NBS performance. To help fill this gap, we systematically mapped the global evidence base on the ecological, physical, economic, and social performance of NBS interventions related to coastal protection. We focused on active NBS interventions, such as restoring or creating habitat, adding structure, or modifying sediment in six shallow biogenic ecosystems: salt marsh, seagrass, kelp forest, mangrove, coral reef, and shellfish reef. MethodsWe identified potentially relevant articles on the performance of NBS for coastal protection using predefined and tested search strategies across two indexing platforms, one bibliographic database, two open discovery citation indexes, one web-based search engine, and a novel literature discovery tool. We also searched 45 organizational websites for literature and solicited literature from 66 subject matter experts. Potentially relevant articles were deduplicated and then screened by title and abstract with assistance from a machine learning algorithm. Following title and abstract screening, we conducted full text screening, extracted relevant metadata into a predefined codebook, and analyzed the evidence base to determine the distribution and abundance of evidence and answer our research questions on NBS performance. ResultsOur search captured > 37,000 articles, of which 252 met our eligibility criteria for relevance to NBS performance for coastal protection and were included in the systematic map. Evidence stemmed from 31 countries and increased from the 1980s through the 2020s. Active NBS interventions for coastal protection were most often implemented in salt marshes (45%), mangrove forests (26%), and shellfish reefs (20%), whereas there were fewer NBS studies in seagrass meadows (4%), coral reefs (4%), or kelp beds (< 1%). Performance evaluations of NBS were typically conducted using observational or experimental methods at local spatial scales and over short temporal scales (< 1 year to 5 years). Evidence clusters existed for several types of NBS interventions, including restoration and addition of structures (e.g., those consisting of artificial, hybrid, or natural materials), yet evidence gaps existed for NBS interventions like alteration of invasive species. Evaluations of NBS performance commonly focused on ecological (e.g., species and population, habitat, community) and physical (e.g., waves, sediment and morphology) outcomes, whereas pronounced evidence gaps existed for economic (e.g., living standards, capital) and social (e.g., basic infrastructure, health) outcomes. ConclusionsThis systematic map highlights evidence clusters and evidence gaps related to the performance of active NBS interventions for coastal protection in shallow, biogenic ecosystems. The synthesized evidence base will help guide future research and management of NBS for coastal protection so that active interventions can be designed, sited, constructed, monitored, and adaptively managed to maximize co-benefits. Promising avenues for future research and management initiatives include implementing broad-scale spatial and temporal monitoring of NBS in multidisciplinary teams to examine not only ecological and physical outcomes but also economic and social outcomes, as well as conducting further synthesis on evidence clusters that may reveal measures of effect for specific NBS interventions. Since NBS can deliver multiple benefits, measuring a diverse suite of response variables, especially those related to ecosystem function, as well as social and economic responses, may help justify and improve societal benefits of NBS. Such an approach can help ensure that NBS can be strategically harnessed and managed to meet coastal protection goals and provide co-benefits for nature and people.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2301959
- PAR ID:
- 10572516
- Publisher / Repository:
- Environmental Evidence, Springer
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Evidence
- Volume:
- 13
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2047-2382
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
ABSTRACT Despite increased understanding and adoption of nature‐based solutions (NBSs) within urban and coastal areas, large‐scale NBS for fluvial flood mitigation remain challenging to study and implement. A stronger evidence base is needed to identify critical research gaps and to best inform the design and deployment of NBS on the watershed scale. We synthesize evidence of the performance and co‐benefits of NBS for fluvial flood mitigation based on a systematic review of 131 peer‐reviewed papers worldwide, developing an Ecosystem Focus Type (EFT) to compare flood mitigation across large‐scale NBS. While we find that NBS can mitigate fluvial floods across all EFTs, our study also highlights that inconsistencies in measurement methods, a dearth of empirical case studies, and large variability in reported values limit generalization and comparison across NBS. Co‐benefits for fluvial flood NBS are numerous, but few are quantified, and study methods vary with regard to specific NBS. Social benefits of NBS, including benefits to communities most in need of support, are infrequently part of these studies. There is a clear need to develop common design and performance standards for large‐scale NBS and for guidance on which measures are key to consider and monitor for flood mitigation and co‐benefits. The success of large‐scale NBS for fluvial flood mitigation will depend on research and practice guided by transdisciplinary systems thinking approaches that can deliver evidence‐based, community‐driven outcomes.more » « less
-
A robust multi-functional framework for widespread planning of nature-based solutions (NBS) must incorporate components of social equity and hydro-environmental performance in a cost-effective manner. NBS systems address stormwater mitigation by increasing on-site infiltration and evaporation through enhanced greenspace while also improving various components of societal well-being, such as physical health (e.g., heart disease, diabetes), mental health (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression), and social cohesion. However, current optimization tools for NBS systems rely on stormwater quantity abatement and, to a lesser extent, economic costs and environmental pollutant mitigation. Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore how NBS planning may be improved to maximize hydrological, environmental, and social co-benefits in an unequivocal and equitable manner. Here, a novel equity-based indexing framework is proposed to better understand how we might optimize social and physical functionalities of NBS systems as a function of transdisciplinary characteristics. Specifically, this study explores the spatial tradeoffs associated with NBS allocation by first optimizing a local watershed-scale model according to traditional metrics of stormwater efficacy (e.g., cost efficiency, hydrological runoff reduction, and pollutant load reduction) using SWMM modeling. The statistical dispersion of social health is then identified using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), which is a high-resolution spatial account of socioeconomic disadvantages that have been linked to adverse health outcomes, according to United States census properties. As NBSs have been shown to mitigate various adverse health conditions through increased urban greening, this improved understanding of geospatial health characteristics may be leveraged to inform an explicit representation of social wellness within NBS planning frameworks. This study presents and demonstrates a novel framework for integrating hydro-environmental modeling, economic efficiency, and social health deprivation using a dimensionless Gini coefficient, which is intended to spur the positive connection of social and physical influences within robust NBS planning. Hydro-environmental risk (according to hydro-dynamic modeling) and social disparity (according to ADI distribution) are combined within a common measurement unit to capture variation across spatial domains and to optimize fair distribution across the study area. A comparison between traditional SWMM-based optimization and the proposed Gini-based framework reveals how the spatial allocation of NBSs within the watershed may be structured to address significantly more areas of social health deprivation while achieving similar hydro-environmental performance and cost-efficiency. The results of a case study for NBS planning in the White Oak Bayou watershed in Houston, Texas, USA revealed runoff volume reductions of 3.45% and 3.38%, pollutant load reductions of 11.15% and 11.28%, and ADI mitigation metrics of 16.84% and 35.32% for the SWMM-based and the Gini-based approaches, respectively, according to similar cost expenditures. As such, the proposed framework enables an analytical approach for balancing the spatial tradeoffs of overlapping human-water goals in NBS planning while maintaining hydro-environmental robustness and economic efficiency.more » « less
-
Nature-based solutions (NbS) have emerged as a key strategy for sustainably addressing multiple urban challenges, with rapidly increasing knowledge production requiring synthesis to better understand whether and how NbS work in different social, ecological, economic, or governance contexts. Insights in this Perspective are drawn from a thematic review of 61 NbS review articles supported by an expert assessment of NbS knowledge in seven global regions to examine key challenges, fill gaps in Global South assessment, and provide insights for scaling up NbS for impact in cities. Eight NbS challenges emerged from our review of NbS reviews including conceptual, thematic, geographic, ecological, inclusivity, health, governance, and systems challenges. An additional expert assessment reviewing literature and cases in seven global regions further revealed the following: 1) Local context-based ecological knowledge is essential for NbS success; 2) Improved technical knowledge is required for planning and designing NbS; 3) NbS need to be included in all levels of planning and governance; 4) Putting justice and equity at the center of urban NbS approaches is critical, and 5) Inclusive and participatory governance processes will be key to long-term success of NbS. We synthesized findings from the NbS review results and regional expert assessments to offer four critical pathways for scaling up NbS: 1) foster new NbS research, technological innovation, and learning, 2) build a global NbS alliance for sharing knowledge, 3) ensure a systems approach to NbS planning and implementation, and 4) increase financing and political will for diverse NbS implementation.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundBeing socially excluded has detrimental effects, with prolonged exclusion linked to loneliness and social isolation. Social disconnection interventions that do not require direct support actions (e.g., “how can I help?”) offer promise in mitigating the affective and cognitive consequences of social exclusion. We examine how various social disconnection interventions involving friends and unknown peers might mitigate social exclusion by buffering (interveningbefore) and by promoting recovery (interveningafter). MethodsWe present an integrative data analysis (IDA) of five studies (N = 664) that systematically exposed participants to exclusion (vs. inclusion) social dynamics. Using a well-validated paradigm, participants had a virtual interaction with two other people. Unbeknownst to participants, the other people’s behavior was programmed to either behave inclusively toward the participant or for one to behave exclusively. Critically, our social disconnection interventions experimentally manipulated whether a friend was present (vs. an unknown peer vs. being alone), the nature of interpersonal engagement (having a face-to-face conversation vs. a reminder of an upcoming interaction vs. mere presence), and the timing of the intervention in relation to the social dynamic (before vs. during vs. after). We then assessed participants’ in-the-moment affective and cognitive responses, which included mood, feelings of belonging, sense of control, and social comfort. ResultsExperiencing exclusion (vs. inclusion) led to negative affective and cognitive consequences. However, engaging in a face-to-face conversation with a friendbeforethe exclusion lessened its impact (p < .001). Moreover, a face-to-face conversation with a friendafterexclusion, and even a reminder of an upcoming interaction with a friend, sped-up recovery (ps < .001). There was less conclusive evidence that a face-to-face conversation with an unknown peer, or that the mere presence of a friend or unknown peer, conferred protective benefits. ConclusionsThe findings provide support for the effectiveness of social disconnection interventions that involve actual (i.e., face-to-face) or symbolic (i.e., reminders) interactions with friends. These interventions target momentary vulnerabilities that arise from social exclusion by addressing negative affect and cognitions before or after they emerge. As such, they offer a promising approach to primary prevention prior to the onset of loneliness and social isolation.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-024-00350-5
