Search

Atoll societies have adapted their environments and social systems for thousands of years, but the rapid pace of climate change may bring conditions that exceed their adaptive capacities. There is growing interest in the use of 'nature-based solutions' to facilitate the continuation of dignified and meaningful lives on atolls through a changing climate. However, there remains insufficient evidence to conclude that these can make a significant contribution to adaptation on atolls, let alone to develop standards and guidelines for their implementation. A sustained programme of research to clarify the potential of nature-based solutions to support the habitability of atolls is therefore vital. In this paper, we provide a prospectus to guide this research programme: we explain the challenge climate change poses to atoll societies, discuss past and potential future applications of nature-based solutions and outline an agenda for transdisciplinary research to advance knowledge of the efficacy and feasibility of nature-based solutions to sustain the habitability of atolls. This article is part of the theme issue 'Nurturing resilient marine ecosystems'.

Climate change is increasing the threat of erosion and flooding along coastlines globally. Engineering solutions (e.g. seawalls and breakwaters) in response to protecting coastal communities and associated infrastructure are increasingly becoming economically and ecologically unsustainable. This has led to recommendations to create or restore natural habitats, such as sand dunes, saltmarsh, mangroves, seagrass and kelp beds, and coral and shellfish reefs, to provide coastal protection in place of (or to complement) artificial structures. Coastal managers are frequently faced with the problem of an eroding coastline, which requires a decision on what mitigation options are most appropriate to implement. A barrier to uptake of nature-based coastal defence is stringent evaluation of the effectiveness in comparison to artificial protection structures. Here, we assess the current evidence for the efficacy of nature-based vs. artificial coastal protection and discuss future research needs. Future projects should evaluate habitats created or restored for coastal defence for cost-effectiveness in comparison to an artificial structure under the same environmental conditions. Cost-benefit analyses should take into consideration all ecosystem services provided by nature-based or artificial structures in addition to coastal protection. Interdisciplinary research among scientists, coastal managers and engineers is required to facilitate the experimental trials needed to test the value of these shoreline protection schemes, in order to support their use as alternatives to artificial structures. This research needs to happen now as our rapidly changing climate requires new and innovative solutions to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to an increasingly uncertain future., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The construction of artificial structures in the marine environment is increasing globally. Eco-engineering aims to mitigate the negative ecological impacts of built infrastructure through designing structures to be multifunctional, benefiting both humans and nature. To date, the focus of eco-engineering has largely been on benefits for benthic invertebrates and algae. Here, the potential effect of eco-engineered habitats designed for benthic species on fish was investigated. Eco-engineered habitats ('flowerpots') were added to an intertidal seawall in Sydney Harbour, Australia. Responses of fish assemblages to the added habitats were quantified at two spatial scales; large (among seawalls) and small (within a seawall). Data were collected during high tide using cameras attached to the seawall to observe pelagic and benthic fish. At the larger spatial scale, herbivores, planktivores, and invertebrate predators were generally more abundant at the seawall with the added flowerpots, although results were temporally variable. At the smaller spatial scale, certain benthic species were more abundant around flowerpots than at the adjacent control areas of seawall, although there was no general pattern of differences in species density and trophic group abundance of pelagic fish between areas of the seawall with or without added habitats. Although we did not find consistent, statistically significant findings throughout our study, the field of research to improve fish habitat within human-use constraints is promising and important, although it is in its early stages (it is experimental and requires a lot of trial and error). To advance this field, it is important to document when effects were detected, and when they were not, so that others can refine the designs or scale of habitat enhancements or their study approaches (e.g., sampling protocols). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]