4.6 Review

How ecological engineering can serve in coastal protection

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 113-122

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.027

关键词

Coastal protection; Ecosystem engineering species; Artificial habitats; Ecosystem-based management; Dutch coastline; Building with Nature

资金

  1. Dutch Technology Foundation STW
  2. applied science division of NWO
  3. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs
  4. Rijkswaterstaat WaterINNovatiebron (WINN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditionally, protection of the coastal area from flooding is approached from an engineering perspective. This approach has often resulted in negative or unforeseen impacts on local ecology and is even known to impact surrounding ecosystems on larger scales. In this paper, the utilization of ecosystem engineering species for achieving civil-engineering objectives or the facilitation of multiple use of limited space in coastal protection is focused upon, either by using ecosystem engineering species that trap sediment and damp waves (oyster beds, mussel beds, willow floodplains and marram grass), or by adjusting hard substrates to enhance ecological functioning. Translating desired coastal protection functionality into designs that make use of the capability of appropriate ecosystem engineering species is, however, hampered by lack of a generic framework to decide which ecosystem engineering species or what type of hard-substrate adaptations may be used where and when. In this paper we review successful implementation of ecosystem engineering species in coastal protection for a sandy shore and propose a framework to select the appropriate measures based on the spatial and temporal scale of coastal protection, resulting in a dynamic interaction between engineering and ecology. Modeling and monitoring the bio-physical interactions is needed, as it allows to upscale successful implementations and predict otherwise unforeseen impacts. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据