Buildingwithnature MAEN

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/297765063
Nature-based solutions: Lessons from around the world
Article in Maritime Engineering · March 2016

DOI: 10.1680/jmaen.15.00027
CITATIONS READS
32 4,193
4 authors, including:
Nigel Pontee Siddharth Narayan

Jacobs Engineering Group 65 PUBLICATIONS 929 CITATIONS
105 PUBLICATIONS 1,113 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Adam Hosking
CH2M Hill
16 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Effectiveness, Costs and Benefits of Habitats for Coastal Protection View project
Coastal habitat restoration View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nigel Pontee on 09 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pontee, N.I., Narayan, S., Beck, M., Hosking A.H., 2016. Building with nature: Lessons from around the world.
Maritime Engineering Journal, 169, 1, 29-36.
Nature Based Solutions: lessons from around the

world
Nigel Pontee, CH2M, Wiltshire, UK

Siddharth Narayan, NCEAS, UC Santa Barbara, USA
Michael W. Beck, TNC, UC Santa Cruz, USA
Adam H. Hosking, CH2M, Wiltshire, UK
Abstract
This paper considers an emerging group of coastal management approaches which
offer the potential to reduce coastal flood and erosion risks whilst also providing
nature conservation, aesthetic and amenity benefits.
These solutions mimic the characteristics of natural features, but are enhanced or
created by man to provide specific services such as wave energy dissipation and
erosion reduction. Such approaches can include beaches, dunes, saltmarshes,
mangroves, sea grasses, coral and oyster reefs.
The paper describes a number of innovative projects and the lessons learned in their
development and implementation. These lessons include the planning, design and
construction of projects, their development following implementation, the
engagement of local communities and the cost effectiveness of solutions.
Words: 3,588
Introduction
This paper reviews a range of nature-based solutions for wave attenuation and erosion
reduction on the coast. In this paper the term “Nature – Based Solutions (NBS)” is used
to describe these approaches. The paper presents initial results of efforts to synthesise
and understand existing knowledge based on work carried out as part of a Science for
Nature and People (SNAP) project (www.snap.is/coastaldefenses) as well as practical
engineering experience. The first section of the paper examines the terminology
surrounding NBS. The following section describes key factors that need to be
considered when choosing and implementing NBS, especially in comparison with more
traditional hard engineered solutions. A brief overview of some NBS projects is then
given to further illustrate the range of approaches that exist. Finally, the paper
concludes with a summary of the key considerations regarding NBS in coastal
engineering today.
1
Context and Terminology

Recent decades have seen a shift in coastal protection and risk reduction from
traditional ‘hard’ or ‘grey’ engineering solutions that exclusively involve structural
features (e.g. seawalls and breakwaters) to ‘softer’, more eco-friendly solutions. The
term ‘soft’ engineering came into use in the 1980’s to describe those solutions which
attempt to have a beneficial influence on coastal processes and in doing so improve
the level of service provided by a sea defence or coast protection structure. In the last
5 to 10 years, a variety of new terms have started to be used to describe these type of
solutions including “Building with Nature”, “Living Shorelines”, “Engineering with
Nature”, “Ecological Engineering”, “Green Infrastructure”, etc. (Borsje et al., 2011,
Bridges et al., 2015, Chapman and Underwood, 2011). This variety of terms, coupled
with a lack of specific details about the physical elements of the solution can cause
confusion. In this paper we use the term Nature Based Solution (NBS) as the catch-all
term for these approaches.
In this paper NBS are defined as consisting either wholly, or partially, of natural
features that are designed to offer or improve coastal protection. This includes:
1) Fully natural solutions (e.g. naturally occurring coral reefs, marshes and
mangroves).
2) Managed natural solutions (e.g. artificial coral/oyster reefs, renourished
beaches and dunes, planted salt marshes and mangroves).
3) Hybrid solutions that combine structural engineering with natural features (e.g.
marsh-levee systems or dune-dyke systems).
4) ‘Environment-friendly’ structural engineering (e.g. vegetated engineering or
bamboo sediment fences).
For the purposes of this paper, non-structural measures such as policies, building
codes and emergency response (e.g. early warning and evacuation plans), have not
been considered further.
For fully natural NBS, the coastal protection service (i.e. erosion control, wave
reduction or flood storage) is provided entirely by the coastal habitat. In this case, the
habitat occurs naturally and is not specifically managed for coastal protection. For
managed NBS, the coastal protection service is provided by a coastal habitat that is
created and/or managed for this purpose. Examples of managed NBS include the
coastal dune management programme in the UK (Pye et al., 2007) and Netherlands
as well as oyster reefs in Louisiana (Kirkpatrick, 2013). For hybrid NBS the coastal
protection is provided by a coastal habitat in combination with a ‘hard’ defence located
either to the landward (e.g. dykes) or seaward side (e.g. sills) of the natural habitat
(e.g. Wheeler et al., 2008, Hardaway et al., 2009). Additionally, there are solutions that
modify hard engineering solutions to make them more environment-friendly (or
‘softer’). ‘Vegetated engineering’ or ‘greenwashing’ is the practice of modifying coastal
protection structures to create or enhance ecological value. One example is the
provision of ecological niches in breakwaters and seawalls (Chapman and Underwood,
2011). Another example of ‘softer’ hard engineering solutions is ‘bio-engineering’, such
as the use of bamboo wood fences to trap sediment (Halide et al., 2004).
These examples illustrate the importance of specifying the physical elements of the
solutions being considered (e.g. embankments fronted by saltmarsh, revetments
fronted by beaches, offshore breakwater backed by beaches etc.) in order that different
parties understand what is being proposed. There is some confusion as to what
constitutes NBS. Views differ between countries and between different professions.
2
For instance, ecologists might consider NBS to only include solutions with a living
element (e.g. marshes, mangroves, reefs). Engineers, on the other hand, commonly
use the term NBS to describe solutions that use or mimic natural processes (e.g. beach
nourishment projects that rely on coastal processes to redistribute the sediment).
Offshore breakwaters are typically seen as hard engineering solutions. However, these
structures are often used to protect or enhance habitats, such as beaches or dunes, in
order to provide coastal protection. Such a combination of breakwater and beach falls
within the hybrid NBS category in the classification proposed in this paper.
Considerations for NBS Implementation

A number of countries have started to implement NBS as part of wider coastal risk
reduction strategies for dealing with sea level rise and the loss of coastal habitat. Since
such solutions are often comprised of natural habitats they often also provide a number
of additional benefits. These benefits are collectively termed ecosystem services and
are defined as:
1) supporting services (e.g. nutrient recycling);
2) provisioning services (e.g. raw materials such as wood, fodder),
3) regulatory services (e.g. coastal protection, carbon sequestration); and,
4) cultural services (e.g. recreational, science; Millennium Ecosystems
Assessment, 2005).
In addition to the structural and hydraulic parameters analysed for a conventional
engineering structures, many NBS designs require consideration of a range of
biological, chemical and physical parameters to ensure the successful establishment
and functioning of habitats. For example, mangrove restoration is unlikely to be
possible in environments that do not have the right range of tidal exposure, salinity,
and nutrients required for mangrove establishment (Balke et al., 2011). Similarly
mudflats are typically located in low wave energy environments, whilst dunes and
beaches and coral reefs are typically found in higher energy environments. Where the
correct conditions for the habitat do not exist, considerable anthropogenic interventions
(and expenditure) are likely to be required.
Guidelines and manuals for NBS are less well established than for conventional
engineering approaches. There are, however, an increasing number of studies that
can contribute to the development of NBS guidelines and manuals. A few design
guidelines and manuals have been developed, such as the ‘Building with Nature’
guidelines in the Netherlands, the ‘Managed Realignment’ guidelines in the UK
(Leggett et al., 2004) that build on lessons learnt from multiple NBS projects. More
recently, the US Army Corps of Engineers provided a framework and metrics for
assessing and ranking NBS alternatives alongside other coastal protection measures
for the Atlantic coast of the USA (Bridges et al., 2015). The ‘Living Shorelines’ projects
on the east coast of the United States and ‘Greenbelt’ mangrove and salt-marsh
restoration projects in China (Chung, 2006) and Vietnam (see case-studies below), are
some examples of large-scale NBS implementation.
While specific design considerations may differ between NBS and traditional hard
engineering solutions, the design process is essentially the same. Frameworks for
NBS design for coastal protection follow a process very similar to the design process
for a conventional coastal engineering structure (e.g. the Dutch ‘Building with Nature’
framework and the USACE ‘Engineering with Nature’ framework).
3
The standard of protection provided by an NBS is generally less well understood than
conventional coastal engineering structures. This arises due to the higher natural
variability of natural habitats and a relative lack of experience regarding the
performance of these habitats as flood or erosion risk mitigation measures. The coastal
protection effectiveness of an NBS will be determined by several factors:
• Type of habitat: this is controlled by the environmental conditions such as wave
energy, tidal range, sediment and nutrient supply etc.
• Water depths: the wave dissipation over/through habitats is governed by the
depth of water relative to the habitats, and;
• Habitat characteristics: for example higher reef crests, or higher and/or more
dense mangrove stands, tend to be more effective at dissipating wave energy.
It is often perceived that NBS provide a lower standard of service than hard engineering
structures. In some cases, however, such as the managed coastal dunes in the
Netherlands, NBS may provide levels as high as traditional hard engineering structures
(achieving a 1 in 10,000 year standard of protection in some places; Most and
Wehrung, 2005). Coral reefs have also been found to be highly effective as off-shore
breakwaters (Ferrario et al., 2014). Hybrid NBS make use of natural habitats to
complement an engineering structure either by protecting the structure or by increasing
its standard of service. In some environments, oyster reefs can offer a suitable
alternative to traditional breakwaters where some form of seaward protection is
required for an inter-tidal or coastal habitat (Kirkpatrick, 2013).
The costs of NBS can vary significantly depending on the habitat and site
characteristics. For instance, while marsh creation in a naturally favourable
environment is relatively inexpensive, restoration after damage in a storm or in
unsuitable (e.g. polluted) environments can be difficult and expensive (Barbier, 2013).
Nevertheless, once established, NBS are typically seen as low cost ‘no regret’ options
that are cheaper and easier to maintain than hard engineering structures (Tinch &
Ledoux, 2006). Examples also exist of hybrid solutions where a salt-marsh, willow or
mangrove belt seaward of a dyke have been shown to greatly reduce the cost of dyke
maintenance, and in some cases, have allowed a reduction in dyke crest height by
complementing its protective function (Anthony and Gratiot, 2012).
A survey of expert opinions suggests that ecosystem-based options are more
affordable and have positive additional consequences, although they are not as
effective as other options in reducing the impact of the hazard (Royal Society, 2014).
However, as mentioned previously in this paper, it is advisable to avoid making
generalisations about the relative costs and standards of protection of NBS versus
hard infrastructure due the wide variety of approaches that exist under the NBS banner.
NBS Case Studies

The following section presents a number of case studies of NBS from around the
world. These case studies illustrate the range of different approaches that can be
adopted.
Howard Beach Flood Protection Study, New York, USA – Hybrid Solution
Overview: This study examined strategies for Howard Beach (a neighbourhood of
New York City borough of Queens) in the aftermath of super-storm Sandy (The
4
Nature Conservancy, 2013a). The main purpose of these mitigation strategies was to
help coastal communities reduce erosion and flood reduction risk and provide
recreation benefits.
Reason for Consideration of NBS: While hard infrastructure was beneficial for storm
events, NBS provided cost savings as well as significant aesthetic and environmental
benefits to the community. NBS were shown to improve water quality, provide new
habitats and, under the right conditions, keep pace with sea level rise.
Alternative solutions considered: The study identified a number of alternative hybrid
approaches that could provide robust flood and erosion protection to the landward
urban areas (Figure 1).
Project Description and Outcomes: The project was sited in densely populated
coastal area which included a major international airport. The project included
options ranging from barriers and gates across the entrance to Jamaica Bay (within
which Howard Beach is located), through vegetated levees of various forms, to
wetland restoration options to create a storm surge buffer. The study undertook
detailed hydrodynamic modelling of the various options to quantify their performance
in reducing the flood risk exposure of the vulnerable assets and infrastructure. This
analysis demonstrated that hard options were necessary to ensure the requisite level
of protection under large storm surge conditions, and that the incorporation of NBS
elements into a hybrid approach could reduce maintenance burdens, protect against
smaller events, and provide improved overall socio-environmental outcomes.
Lessons learnt: Where there is dense urban development with a high degree of flood
or erosion exposure at the coast, it may be necessary to incorporate elements of hard
protection structures to provide sufficient certainty of protection under extreme events.
Hybrid options can provide a more cost beneficial and environmentally preferable
alternative to a traditional hard engineering approaches in some circumstances.
Ship Shoal Pipeline Erosion Control, Louisiana, USA – Managed Natural

Solution
Overview: This study investigated alternative natural infrastructure designs to
enhance wetland shoreline stability where pipelines intersect waterways (The Nature
Conservancy, 2013b).
Reason for Consideration of NBS: The traditional hard infrastructure elements, such
as bulkheads and rip rap plugs, were being undermined by eroding tidal channels.
Alternative Solutions Considered: Given the dynamism of the wetland environment
and its environmental value, NBS were considered to provide multiple benefits and
the flexibility to adapt over time. A wide range of fully natural and hybrid NBS were
investigated (Figure 2) and various options proposed based on the local conditions.
Project Description and Outcomes: Shell filled gabions, permeable concrete
mattresses with planted vegetation, and vegetated embankments were amongst the
recommended solutions. Each of these options had the benefit of biological
production and the ability to naturally adapt to changing conditions thereby providing
sustainable solutions to the erosion problem.
Lessons learnt: A wide range of NBS approaches were defined and appraised. While
each approach had its merits, particularly in relation to its habitat value, the certainty
of protection provided to the vulnerable infrastructure was ultimately the key factor in
determining the preferred approach. Traditionally this scenario might have pointed to
5
simply expanding or rebuilding the existing hard infrastructure, however this project’s
implementation together with future monitoring will help demonstrate how NBS can
be used to protect infrastructure assets.
Alkborough Flood Storage and Wetland Restoration Scheme, Humber Estuary,

UK – Hybrid Solution
Overview: This project aimed to provide compensatory intertidal habitat and reduce
flood risk within the wider estuary.
Reason for Consideration of NBS: Requirement for compensatory habitat and
reduction in flood risk.
Alternative solutions considered: A variety of different breaching configurations at the
site. Traditional engineering works to raise defences in other areas of the estuary.
Project Description and Outcomes: The project converted 450 hectares of arable
farmland into new inter-tidal habitat and incorporated new flood defences around the
rear of the site (Figure 3). The area acts as a flood storage reservoir during extreme
events helping to lower water levels in the inner and middle parts of the Humber
Estuary. This reduces the amount of work needed to improve the existing hard
defences around the estuary. Further details can be found in Wheeler et al. (2008).
Lessons learnt: Detailed numerical modelling is needed to ensure the effectiveness
of flood storage areas in reducing water levels in estuarine environments.
Additionally, the erosion of the exit channel leading from the scheme to main estuary
was observed to be extremely rapid, with the majority of change occurring over the
first week following the opening.
Red Cross Mangrove Restoration Scheme, Vietnam – Hybrid Solution

Overview: The Vietnam chapter of the International Federation of Red Cross Societies
spear-headed a mangrove reforestation effort from 1993 to 2010 (IFRC, 2011). The
objective of the project was to provide coastal protection and other ecosystem services
to local populations.
Reason for Consideration of NBS: The project was motivated by large-scale
deforestation of mangroves by logging and shrimp farm activity.
Alternative solutions considered: Most of the solutions were intended as hybrid
measures and integrated with artificial flood defences (sea dykes) from the start. No
alternative hard engineering measures were examined.
Project Description: The project comprised mangrove reforestation of nearly 9000 ha,
to protect 100 km of sea-dykes and coastal assets.
Outcomes: The measures were found to be highly cost-effective, with Benefit-Cost
Ratios (BCRs) varying from 3:1 to 28:1. The three communities that were hit by similar
storms before and after the mangrove reforestation experienced much less flood and
sea dyke damage in the presence of the mangroves, the avoided damage in these
communities being estimated at £53,000 to £196,000.
Lessons Learnt: The project showed that large-scale mangrove restoration can be
done cheaply and successfully and can provide significant coastal protection among
other ecosystem services.
MacDill AFB Oyster Reef, Florida, USA – Managed Natural Solution
6
Overview: This project near the MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida, aimed to
restore and stabilise an eroding shoreline using NBS in order to protect valuable
coastal assets and provide conditions suitable for further salt-marsh restoration
activities (Kirkpatrick, 2013).
Alternative Solutions Considered: Two alternative NBS solutions were trialled –
planting salt-marsh and mangroves, neither of which succeeded.
Project Description: The three phase programme, extending over five years, was
funded by multiple institutions including the Air Force, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and other institutions. The oyster reefs were constructed from Reef Ball and Oyster
Shell Bags and installed with the help of volunteers (Figure 4).
Outcomes: Over 300 m of shoreline were protected by the reefs and monitoring shows
considerable shoreline accretion accompanied by salt-marsh colonisation.
Lessons Learnt: The project provided useful experience in the design and
construction methodologies for oyster reefs, including details of reef profiles,
positioning, spacing, etc. The project provided educational opportunities and
opportunities to engage local communities that may not have been achieved with
more conventional coastal protection measures.
Lessons for NBS Implementation

There are a variety of enabling mechanisms for NBS including:
1) Conservation or restoration programmes for coastal habitats.
2) Legislation such as the EU Floods Directive (European Commission, 2009)
that promotes the use of ‘green infrastructure’ for coastal protection and
conservation.
3) Policies and strategies that incentivise NBS such as the ‘Living Shorelines’
programme in the USA (Swann, 2008), the European Commission’s ‘Green
Infrastructure Strategy’ (Fritz, 2014) and projects like ‘BRANCH’ in the UK,
which was promoted by Natural England, the Environment Agency and other
non-profit and government organisations (BRANCH partnership, 2007).
4) Coastal disaster recovery programmes - a major opportunity for NBS exists in
the immediate aftermath of coastal disasters when billions of dollars are spent
on recovery and restoration. In these instances appropriate legislation can
encourage the use of NBS for coastal protection.
Solutions involving inter-tidal habitats typically require more space than conventional
engineering structures, and as such, land availability and costs can be major
constraints to their implementation. On the other hand, these solutions offer an
opportunity for creating new habitat which is a key motivation for projects in Europe
(BRANCH partnership, 2007). Design and implementation are often a combination of
experience gained from previous projects and a degree of experimental design. The
‘Building with Nature’ programme in the Netherlands has used extensive experience
in this field to come up with a basic design process and framework for similar projects
elsewhere (van Slobbe et al., 2013). Engineering and management guidelines also
exist for the implementation of managed realignment projects that build on
experience with these schemes in the Europe (Leggett et al., 2004). It should be
noted that design guidelines for NBS vary by habitat type. The management of dune
and beach systems for coastal protection (Pye et al., 2007), for example, requires a
different approach to that required for salt-marsh or mangrove systems (IFRC, 2011).
7
The cost-effectiveness of NBS will vary depending on the standard of protection

desired. In some cases, such as the Ship Shoal Pipeline project, NBS can
complement and reduce the cost of creation and/or maintenance of traditional
engineering approaches. In other situations, such as the Vietnam case-study, NBS
are reported to provide relatively cheap coastal protection alternatives in favourable
environments. In such cases they are commonly reported to have low maintenance
costs relative to hard engineering structures on account of their biological production
and capacity for self-organisation. Sometimes NBS are chosen despite their greater
construction costs due to the wider benefits they provide in terms of other eco-
system services, such as carbon storage, increased ecosystem diversity and/or
health, water treatment, tourism, aesthetic and recreational benefits, etc. It should be
noted that tourism, aesthetic and recreational benefits can also be obtained with
suitably designed hard structures. A comprehensive cost-benefit comparison of NBS
and hard engineering options is therefore necessary when determining the most
suitable approach.
Conclusions
At present NBS are not routinely considered as part of the suite of potential solutions
to coastal erosion and flooding problems. Equally, where NBS options are
considered, there is limited appraisal of alternatives. The scope therefore exists for
NBS approaches to be more widely considered alongside other structural and non-
structural risk reduction measures.
At present, guidelines for NBS are limited and implementation is still predominantly
case-specific. As such, information from existing projects can provide valuable
information on appropriate designs, implementation techniques and cost-benefit. An
online interactive database of NBS projects from across the globe is now being
developed as part of the SNAP Coastal Defenses Working Group
(www.maps.coastalresilience.org/global, “Natural Defenses Projects” tab). The aim of this
database is to gather and improve access to information on NBS projects of various
types and settings, to enable better evaluation of the feasibility of future projects.
The development of NBS can follow a design process similar to conventional coastal
protection measures, with additional requirements being incorporated to consider
specific habitat development needs. Like any other coastal engineering measure,
project-specific studies and cost benefit assessments are needed before decisions
can be made on the applicability and viability of NBS at individual sites.
From a review of existing literature and a number of case studies the following
lessons are identified:
• A key advantage of NBS over hard engineering is the provision of additional
eco-system services.
• By their nature many NBS are constrained by the suitability of the habitat to
the environment at the site, as well as by the suitability of its coastal protection
service.
• Given the range of NBS solutions, including hybrid solutions, evaluation of
viability requires specific analyses of affordability and effectiveness for each
case. General statements with regards to the costs and standards of
protection of NBS compared with hard structures can be misleading and
should be avoided.
8
Acknowledgements
This work was partly supported by the Science for Nature and People (SNAP) Coastal
Defenses Working Group (http://www.snap.is/groups/coastal-defenses/). The
comments of the anonymous reviewers have helped clarify the paper and are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
ANTHONY, E. J. & GRATIOT, N. 2012. Coastal engineering and large-scale
mangrove destruction in Guyana, South America: Averting an environmental
catastrophe in the making. Ecological Engineering, 47, 268-273.
BALKE, T., BOUMA, T. J., HORSTMAN, E. M., WEBB, E. L., ERFTEMEIJER, P. L. &
HERMAN, P. M. 2011. Windows of opportunity: thresholds to mangrove seedling
establishment on tidal flats. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 440.
BARBIER, E. B. 2013. Valuing Ecosystem Services for Coastal Wetland Protection
and Restoration: Progress and Challenges. Resources, 2, 213-230.
BORSJE, B. W., VAN WESENBEECK, B. K., DEKKER, F., PAALVAST, P., BOUMA,
T. J., VAN KATWIJK, M. M. & DE VRIES, M. B. 2011. How ecological engineering
can serve in coastal protection. Ecological Engineering, 37, 113-122.
BRANCH PARTNERSHIP 2007. Planning for biodiversity in a changing climate -
BRANCH project final report. Natural England, UK.
BRIDGES, T., WAGNER, P. W., BURKS-COPES, K. A., BATES, M. E., COLLIER, Z.
A., FISCHENICH, C. J., GAILANI, J. Z., LEUCK, L. D., PIERCY, C. D., ROSATI, J.
D., RUSSO, E. J., SHAFER, D. J., SUEDEL, B. C., VUXTON, E. A. & WAMSLEY, T.
V. 2015. Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF) for Coastal Resilience.
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk.
Vicksburb, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Research and Development
Center.
CHAPMAN, M. G. & UNDERWOOD, A. J. 2011. Evaluation of ecological engineering
of “armoured” shorelines to improve their value as habitat. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology, 400, 302-313.
CHUNG, C.H. 2006. Forty years of ecological engineering with Spartina plantations
in China. Ecological Engineering, 27, 49-57.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2007. The Habitats Directive [Online].
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm.
Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm
[Accessed August 2012].
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2009. The Floods Directive [Online]. Available:
http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eu-floods-directive.html [Accessed October 2014].
FERRARIO, F., BECK, M. W., STORLAZZI, C. D., MICHELI, F., SHEPARD, C. C. &
AIROLDI, L. 2014. The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation. Nat Commun, 5.
9
FRITZ, M. 2014. Green Infrastructure - Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital.

Budapest, Hungary: The European Commission, CEEweb Academy.
HALIDE, H., BRINKMAN, R. & RIDD, P. 2004. Designing bamboo wave attenuators
for mangrove plantations. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 33, 220-225.
HARDAWAY C.S., J., MILLIGAN, D. A., O'BRIEN, K. P., WILCOX, C. A., SHEN, J. &
HOBBS.III, C. H. 2009. Encroachment of Sills onto State-Owned Bottom: Design
Guidelines for Chesapeake Bay. Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA: Virginia Institute of
Marine Science.
IFRC (INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT
SOCIETIES) 2011. Breaking the waves: Impact analysis of coastal afforestation for
disaster risk reduction in Vietnam. Geneva: IFRC,.
KIRKPATRICK, J. 2013. Constructing Oyster Reef for Shoreline Stabilization and
Restoration. www.oyster-restoration.org. MacDill AFB.
LEGGETT, D.J., COOPER, N.J. and HARVEY, R. 2004. Coastal and estuarine
managed realignment: design issues. CIRIA Publications, RP681.
MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEMS ASSESSMENT 2005. Ecosystem and Human
Wellbeing: General Synthesis, Island Press, Vancouver
(http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf)
MOST, H. & WEHRUNG, M. 2005. Dealing with Uncertainty in Flood Risk
Assessment of Dike Rings in the Netherlands. Natural Hazards, 36, 191-206.
PYE, K., SAYE, S. & BLOTT, S. 2007. Part 3: The geomorphological and
management status of coastal dunes in England and Wales. In: DEFRA/EA (ed.)
Sand dune processes and management for flood and coastal defence. Bristol, UK:
Environment Agency,.
ROYAL SOCIETY 2014. Resilience to extreme weather. London: The Royal Society
Science Policy Centre.
SWANN, L. 2008. The use of living shorelines to mitigate the effects of storm events
on Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 2008.
000-000.
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 2013a. Integrating Natural Infrastructure Into Urban
Coastal Resilience: Howard Beach, Queens. New York: The Nature Conservancy.
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 2013b. Shell and TNC: Coastal Pipeline Erosion
Control Using Oyster Reefs, Louisiana, US. In: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY (ed.)
Green Infrastructure Case Studies.
TINCH, R. & LEDOUX, L. 2006. Economics of Managed Realignment in the UK:
Final Report to the Coastal Futures Project. Environmental Futures Limited.
VAN SLOBBE, E., DE VRIEND, H. J., AARNINKHOF, S., LULOFS, K., DE VRIES,
M. & DIRCKE, P. 2013. Building with Nature: in search of resilient storm surge
protection strategies. Natural Hazards, 66, 1461-1480.
WHEELER, D., TAN, S., PONTEE, N., PYGOTT, J. 2008. Alkborough scheme
reduces extreme water levels in the Humber Estuary and creates new habitat.
FLOODrisk 2008 - The European conference on flood risk management research in
to practice 30 September - 2 October 2008 Keble College, Oxford, UK.
10
11
Beach Groyne
RSA wall section
Berm Section
Images not to scale
Beach section
Figure 1: Design of grey and green coastal infrastructure at Howard Beach,

USA.
Figure 2: Schematic of NBS coastal protection options for Ship Shoal pipeline, USA.
12
Figure 3: Alkborough Flood Storage scheme in the Humber Estuary, UK. Photo
courtesy of the UK Environment Agency.
13
Figure 4: Oyster reefs formed from shell bags at Macdill Air Force Base, USA. (source:
http://www.macdill.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2015/12/151211-F-AT337-037.jpg)
14
15
View publication stats

Buildingwithnature MAEN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildingwithnature MAEN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Nature-based solutions: Lessons from around the world

Article in Maritime Engineering · March 2016

Nigel Pontee Siddharth Narayan

Coastal habitat restoration View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nature Based Solutions: lessons from around the

Nigel Pontee, CH2M, Wiltshire, UK

Context and Terminology

Considerations for NBS Implementation

NBS Case Studies

Ship Shoal Pipeline Erosion Control, Louisiana, USA – Managed Natural

Alkborough Flood Storage and Wetland Restoration Scheme, Humber Estuary,

Red Cross Mangrove Restoration Scheme, Vietnam – Hybrid Solution

MacDill AFB Oyster Reef, Florida, USA – Managed Natural Solution

Lessons for NBS Implementation

The cost-effectiveness of NBS will vary depending on the standard of protection

FRITZ, M. 2014. Green Infrastructure - Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital.

RSA wall section

Images not to scale

Figure 1: Design of grey and green coastal infrastructure at Howard Beach,

View publication stats

You might also like