Skip to content
Ecological Intelligence

Ecological evidence.
Independent perspective.
Explore Wild Lands ↗

Ecological Intelligence / Subject

nature-based infrastructure

Peer-reviewed Europe

Marsh vegetation survived extreme waves by bending, not simply resisting

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Deltares wave flume, Netherlands; vegetation from northwestern European tidal marshes
System
Tidal salt marsh; storm-wave exposure

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

Researchers tested winter-state stems of Spartina anglica, Scirpus maritimus and Phragmites australis plus engineered mimics under waves up to 2 m significant height, 4 m water depth and 8-second peak periods. Mean proxy biomass loss was about 30%; bending and flexibility often spared stems, while stiff stems broke more readily. Enough standing height remained to support some wave interaction after the storm.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

Flood-protection plans should model not just whether marsh vegetation exists, but its winter stem traits and the canopy left after an extreme event. Stem survival is a measurable mechanism linking habitat condition to the services a marsh may continue providing.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

This was a controlled flume trial with three plant species and mimics, not a multi-year field test of marsh survival or coastline protection. Breakage is not identical to erosion, elevation change or actual reductions in flood damage; local hydrodynamics and sediment supply remain decisive.

SOURCE

Communications Sustainability — primary flume experiment
View original evidence ↗

A full-scale Dutch wave-flume experiment found roughly 30% average aboveground biomass loss in severe simulated storms; flexible stems persisted most readily.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →
Peer-reviewed North America

Salt-marsh flood protection weakened when the modeled storm got more extreme

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Mobile Bay, Alabama, USA
System
Salt marsh / compound coastal flooding

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

Coupled ADCIRC–SWAN simulations of Mobile Bay compared vegetated and unvegetated marsh scenarios under Hurricane Isaac and a reduced-atmospheric-forcing scenario. Marsh vegetation represented through increased bottom roughness produced minimal average reductions in adjacent-buffer hydrodynamic energy under the baseline extreme event, while the reduced-forcing scenario produced about a 21% average reduction. Compound river and coastal forcing also substantially increased modeled extreme flooding relative to coastal forcing alone.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

Nature-based infrastructure has a performance envelope. The useful design question is not whether marshes ‘protect’ a coast in the abstract, but under which storm intensity, geometry and compound-forcing conditions their attenuation remains consequential—and what gray or operational measures carry the residual risk.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

This is scenario-based hydrodynamic modeling, not measured avoided damage. Vegetation was represented through roughness rather than explicit stems and wave attenuation, flow velocity lacked observational validation, and the reduced-forcing case is not a flood-frequency or return-period analysis.

SOURCE

Frontiers in Marine Science
View original evidence ↗

In Mobile Bay simulations, marsh roughness changed flood intensity little under the Hurricane Isaac baseline but reduced modeled energy by about 21% under a reduced-forcing storm.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →
Peer-reviewed North America

Nature-based shoreline restoration can fail in the permitting system long before it fails ecologically

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary, USA
System
Urban estuary and nature-based shoreline projects

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

Researchers used two workshops and 41 semi-structured interviews with practitioners involved in nature-based shoreline and habitat projects in the New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Recurring barriers included industrial-style regulatory treatment of restoration materials, overlapping agencies with different mandates, limited institutional capacity, and difficulty permitting projects designed to evolve adaptively through time.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

Implementation institutions are part of ecological feasibility. A restoration technique can be biologically credible yet remain functionally unavailable if regulatory categories, review timelines and maintenance rules were designed for static infrastructure rather than dynamic ecological projects.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

The study documents practitioner experience in one heavily regulated estuary and does not measure ecological success rates caused by permitting. Interview evidence can identify recurring institutional barriers without quantifying how much each one delays or changes outcomes.

SOURCE

Socio-Ecological Practice Research · Original evidence
View original evidence ↗

Interviews and workshops in the New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary trace delays to industrial-era regulatory structures, overlapping mandates and difficulty accommodating adaptive projects.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →

Keep exploring

Follow the systems. Find the connections.

WildlifeLandWaterOceansClimateCitiesOne HealthGovernanceMethods / Monitoring
Browse the archive →