Content uploaded by Filippo Ferrario
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Filippo Ferrario on May 30, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014
The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard
risk reduction and adaptation
Filippo Ferrario
1,2
, Michael W. Beck
3
, Curt D. Storlazzi
4
, Fiorenza Micheli
5
, Christine C. Shepard
3
& Laura Airoldi
1,5
The world’s coastal zones are experiencing rapid development and an increase in storms and
flooding. These hazards put coastal communities at heightened risk, which may increase with
habitat loss. Here we analyse globally the role and cost effectiveness of coral reefs in risk
reduction. Meta-analyses reveal that coral reefs provide substantial protection against natural
hazards by reducing wave energy by an average of 97%. Reef crests alone dissipate most of
this energy (86%). There are 100 million or more people who may receive risk reduction
benefits from reefs or bear hazard mitigation and adaptation costs if reefs are degraded. We
show that coral reefs can provide comparable wave attenuation benefits to artificial defences
such as breakwaters, and reef defences can be enhanced cost effectively. Reefs face growing
threats yet there is opportunity to guide adaptation and hazard mitigation investments
towards reef restoration to strengthen this first line of coastal defence.
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794
OPEN
1
Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy.
2
Que
´
bec-Oce
´
an,
Universite
´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6.
3
The Nature Conservancy, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA.
4
US
Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA.
5
Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.W.B. (email: mbeck@tnc.org).
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
N
early 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of
the coast and that percentage is increasing
1
. The growing
natural hazards from coastal storms, flooding and rising
sea level
2
create social, economic and ecological risks of global
significance. The United Nations global report on disaster risk
reduction identified that the risks of economic loss associated
with floods and tropical cyclones are increasing across the world
3
.
The proportion of the world’s Gross Domestic Product annually
exposed to tropical cyclones increased from 3.6% in the 1970s to
4.3% in the first decade of the 2000s (ref. 3). Moreover, the
impacts associated with inundation and flooding from sea-level
rise and storms are expected to increase substantially.
As a consequence, huge investments are being made in coastal
hazard mitigation and increasingly in climate adaptation, and
these investments are often for artificial defence structures such as
seawalls and breakwaters. These costs will increase. For example,
the cost of dikes alone is predicted to increase to US$ 12–71
billion per year by 2100 (ref. 4). In recent climate negotiations,
developed nations pledged US$ 100 billion per year by 2020 to
support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries many
of which are tropical and coastal. Adaptation funds are already
starting to flow from these commitments at US$ 1–4 billion
per year
5
.
Governments and businesses are increasingly interested in
identifying where nature-based solutions can be used cost
effectively as part of the strategy for coastal defence and as an
alternative to investing solely in artificial defences
6–9
. There is a
growing body of evidence that suggests that nature-based
solutions can be effective for risk reduction
10–13
. This evidence
is clearest for mangroves and marshes
10–16
. The evidence is less
well developed for coral reefs, and there is not a synthesis of the
role of reefs in risk reduction.
A clear assessment of the role and effectiveness of coral reefs
for hazard mitigation should inform investments in coastal
defence and could encourage investments to enhance reef
resilience. Understanding the role of coral reefs in coastal
protection is critical as some analyses have suggested that reef
structures and associated ecosystem services might collapse unless
both local and global actions are taken to reverse their decline
17
.
In the past, when reefs have been damaged following extensive
coral mining or land reclamation then investments increased in
artificial defences
18–20
.
Here we provide the first global synthesis and meta-analysis of
the contributions of coral reefs to risk reduction and adaptation.
Our aims are to quantitatively assess the published evidence for
the effects of reefs on wave attenuation and to examine which
parts of the reef have been shown to have the greatest effects on
wave attenuation; to determine where and how many at-risk
people might receive risk reduction benefits from reefs; and to
provide a physical and economic comparison of the risk
reduction value of reefs relative to built infrastructure.
Results
Wave attenuation. Our systematic literature search identified 255
studies on coral reefs and wave attenuation. We could extract data
for meta-analyses from 27 independent publications that covered
reefs across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans to quantita-
tively estimate the effectiveness of coral reefs in wave attenuation.
We examined available studies on wave attenuation across three
reef environments: the reef crest, reef flat and the whole reef
(Fig. 1). The reef flat is the shallow part of the reef that extends
outward from the shore. It is often characterized by reduced water
circulation, the accumulation of sediments and periods of tidal
emersion. The reef crest is the seaward edge and often the
shallowest part of the reef, and where wave breaking first occurs.
The transition between reef flat and reef crest can often be
gradual. We report the effects of reef crest, reef flat and whole reef
separately, because only a few studies examined wave attenuation
across all three environments, and we had to use data
from sometimes different reefs for analyses by environment
(Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Methods).
Reefs significantly reduced wave energy across all three
environments (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 1a). Reef crests
dissipated on average 86% (n ¼ 10; 95% confidence interval:
74–92%) of the incident wave energy (Fig. 2a). Reef flats
dissipated 65% of the remaining wave energy (n ¼ 23; 58–71%).
The whole reef accounted for a total wave energy reduction of
97% (n ¼ 13; 94–98%; Fig. 2a).
Reefs significantly reduced wave height across all three
environments (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 1b). The reef
crest reduced wave height by 64% (n ¼ 10; 51–74%). The reef flat
reduced wave height by 43% (n ¼ 23; 34–51%; Fig. 2b). The whole
reef reduced wave height by 84% (n ¼ 13; 76–89%; Fig. 2b).
We could extract data on wave type (that is, swell and wind
waves) from only a subset of studies to examine if and how reefs
reduced energy by wave type. Wave energy in both swell and
wind wave types was reduced across all three environments (the
whole reef, reef crest and reef flat) although not always
significantly even when combined across experiments. Reef crests
significantly dissipated 70% (n ¼ 4; 43–84%) of the incident swell
wave energy, and the whole reef significantly reduced both wind
and swell wave energy (Supplementary Fig. 2). Reef flats reduced
both wind and swell wave energy, but our analysis of existing
studies showed a significant effect only for swell waves
(Supplementary Fig. 2). The change in wave energy across the
reef flat was much lower than across the reef crest or whole reef,
which makes detection of individual wind wave effects more
difficult.
Using data on incident wave energy from reviewed studies, we
also examined the relationship between maximum incident wave
Reef flat
0
–11
–6
–1
F
WR
C
200
Depth (m)
400 600
800
Reef crest
Fore reef
Distance (m)
WR
C
F
Figure 1 | Example of coral reef environments and sample transects.
Transects along which wave attenuation was estimated for the three
environments are indicated: reef flat (F), reef crest (C) and whole reef
(WR). Measurements of wave parameters were compared between an
offshore control (open circle) and a landward treatment (solid circle) in
each transect. (a) Cross-section of the Camel Rock, Guam, fringing reef,
from US Army Corps of Engineers SHOALS lidar data. (b) Aerial view of
Asan Bay, Guam (data available from the US Geological Survey).
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794
2 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
energy and wave energy reduction by reefs reported for each
individual experiment (Supplementary Table 2). The studies
included in these analyses reported data recorded during different
meteorological condition (calm to stormy), different seasons and
for periods up to 4 consecutive months. Both reef crests and reef
flats dissipated disproportionately more wave energy as incident
wave energy increased (Fig. 3). Nonlinear regressions indicated
that for reef crests and reef flats, wave energy reduction reached
asymptotes of 91% and 67%, respectively (Fig. 3). The effects of
the whole reef in dissipating wave energy were linear from small
through hurricane-level waves, that is, the reefs reduced a
consistent 97% percent of the incident wave energy (Fig. 4 and
Supplementary Fig. 3).
After passing over the crest, waves were attenuated significantly
across wider reef flats. However, most of the wave attenuation
happened in the first part of the reef flat; 50% of the reduction in
both wave energy and height occurred within o150 m from the
reef crest in the experiments that we analysed (Fig. 5).
Comparing coral reefs to artificial coastal defences. The
transmission coefficient, K
t
(that is, the ratio of the transmitted to
the incident significant wave height H
t
/H
i
), of low-crested
detached breakwaters typically ranged from 0.3 to 0.7, which
represents a wave height reduction of 30–70% (refs 21–25). This
range is comparable to the one estimated from our meta-analysis
for coral reefs (51–74%); the average wave height reduction for
reefs (64%; Fig. 2b) is in the upper range of values reported for
artificial structures.
The costs of building tropical breakwaters ranged between
US$ 456 and 188,817 m
1
(Table 1) with a median project cost
of US$ 19,791 m
1
(n ¼ 16). The construction costs of structural
coral reef restoration projects ranged between US$ 20 and
155,000 m
1
with a median project cost of US$ 1,290 m
1
(n ¼ 13) (Table 2). On average, the costs of the restoration
projects were significantly cheaper than costs of building tropical
breakwaters (t-test: t
(27)
¼ 3.762, Po0.001).
Reefs and coastal populations . We estimate that there are up to
197 million people that live both below 10 m elevation and within
50 km of a reef who may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs
(Fig. 6 and Table 3). If we consider only areas within 10 km of a
reef (that is, an 80% reduction in distance) and below 10 m
elevation, there are still some 100 million people who may receive
risk reduction benefits from reefs (Table 3).
The countries with the greatest number of at-risk people who
may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs are Indonesia,
India and the Philippines whether we consider distances of 10 or
50 km from reefs. These three countries alone include B50% of
the people globally that live in low exposed areas near reefs
(Table 3). The USA ranks within the top 10 of countries
in number of people that may receive risk reduction benefits
from reefs.
0
20
40
60
80
100
a
b
Reef crest (10) Reef flat (23) Whole reef (13)
Wave energy reduction (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Wave height reduction (%)
Reef crest (10) Reef flat (23) Whole reef (13)
Reef environment (n )
Figure 2 | Coral reef and wave attenuation meta-analysis results. Values
are the average percentage of (a) wave energy reduction, and (b) wave
height reduction in the three reef environments. Error bars represent 95%
confidence interval. When the confidence intervals do not overlap, the
averages are considered significantly different from zero (Po0.05). ‘n’
reflects the number of independent experiments.
Wave energy reduction (%)
Reef crest
Outlier
Regression line
0 5 10 15 20
Incident wave energy × 10
3
(Jm
−2
)
25
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reef flat
Regression line
0246
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 3 | Wave energy reduction as a function of maximum incident wave energy. The relationship was investigated across (a) reef crests (n ¼ 9) and
(b) reef flats (n ¼ 17). Only experiments for which data were available in J m
2
were used. The asymptotic equations for the relationship between wave
energy reduction (y) and maximum incident wave energy (x) at the reef crest and reef flat are (y ¼ 91.2/(1 þ 52.4/x)) and (y ¼ 66.8 [1 e
( x/185)
]),
respectively. The plotted x values are (J m
2
10
3
) for visual representation purposes, whereas in the equations they are simply in J m
2
.Ina, the
regression did not include the outlier (open circle) as reef crest was comparatively very deep (5 m, see Methods). In b, exclusion of the point at maximum
wave energy does not substantially change the regression line (for example, asymptote changes from 66.8 to 61.6).
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 3
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Discussion
We provide the first quantitative meta-analysis of the role of coral
reefs in reducing wave energy across reefs in the Indian, Pacific
and Atlantic Oceans. Combined results across studies show that
coral reefs dissipate 97% of the wave energy that would otherwise
impact shorelines.
Most (86%) of the wave energy is dissipated by the reef crest;
this relatively high and narrow geomorphological area is the most
critical in providing wave attenuation benefits. The reef flat
dissipates approximately half of the remaining wave energy, most
of the wave energy on the reef flat is dissipated in the first part of
the reef flat (that is, the 150 m closest to the reef crest). This
means that even narrow reef flats effectively contribute to wave
attenuation. These results are consistent with both models and
observations of coastal barriers that identified cross-shore
bathymetric profile, and in particular the height of the barrier
(for example, reef crest), as the most important variable in coastal
defence considerations
15,26–28
. The depth of reefs, particularly at
the shallowest points, is critical in providing wave attenuation
benefits. In order to better quantify these benefits in the future,
much greater emphasis needs to be placed on measuring the
depth profile including across tidal cycles and during events when
water levels are raised (for example, storm surge).
After bathymetry, another critical factor in wave attenuation is
bottom friction, which is a function of bottom roughness
29,30
.
Coral reef degradation has significant impacts on roughness. For
example, the loss of branching Staghorn and Elkhorn corals
(Acropora spp.) Caribbean-wide affects both height and
roughness particularly on reef crests
31
. Unfortunately, most
studies included in our meta-analysis did not report information
on species composition or rugosity. Better information on these
factors would inform reef restoration and conservation efforts,
because they would allow better identification of those species
critical to delivering wave attenuation benefits.
The whole reef dissipates energy with linear (that is, constant)
effect from small through hurricane-level waves. The effect of the
reef crest on wave reduction is nonlinear and intensifies as
incident wave energy increases. These effects are critical for
exposure reduction; reefs are relevant for risk reduction even
during extreme events. For example, in 2005 during Hurricane
Wilma incident wave heights reached 13 m and the
Meso-American reef attenuated 99% of this height
32
. These
data are also consistent with common observations (for example,
surfing videos) that large waves (47 m) break and dissipate most
of their energy on reef crests
33
. We also showed that reefs are
critical not just for low-frequency, high-energy events (for
example, storms and cyclones), but by significantly reducing
swell waves they reduce coastal erosion from the high-frequency
(that is, daily) wave events. Storms are known to have negative
short-term impacts on coral cover
34,35
, but reefs can be resilient
and recover from these impacts
36,37
. Understanding when reefs
(like any defence structure) fail during high-energy events and
how long they take to recover is critical. These are parameters
that can be reasonably measured and modelled if we take a cross-
disciplinary approach to the engineering and ecology of reefs.
Indeed, the role of reefs in coastal defence and how to restore
these benefits needs to be addressed in greater detail, which
will require greater collaboration among ecologists, engineers,
geologists and oceanographers. Although coral reefs are one of
the most well-studied marine ecosystems (for example, 418,000
papers on reef ecology and geology in the last 20 years), we found
only 255 publications that even mentioned the role of reefs in
wave attenuation, wave energy or wave breaking, and only 10% of
these directly addressed the issue with data. By comparison, there
were 45,000 papers that noted coral reef fish and fisheries.
There are only a handful of studies of the implications of reef
degradation for wave impacts on coastlines. In the Maldives, Red
Sea, Cancun (Mexico) and Bali (Indonesia) there are inferred
links between increases in coastal development, reef degradation
and investments in artificial defences, but only a few direct studies
on causality
18–20,38,39
. From a coastal engineering standpoint, any
reef degradation (or sea-level rise) that increases water depth
should result in more wave energy passing over the reef and
through coastlines
39
. The loss of corals has led to real increases in
wave energy reaching coastlines in the Maldives
39
.
Based on our analyses and recent studies by the re-insurance
industry
6
, we find that reef conservation and restoration can be
cost effective for risk reduction and adaptation. In considerations
of effectiveness, coral reefs can deliver wave attenuation benefits
similar to or greater than artificial structures designed for coastal
Wave energy dissipated ×10
3
(Jm
−2
)
Whole Reef
Regression line
0102030 215225
0
10
20
30
215
225
Incident wave energy ×10
3
(Jm
−2
)
Figure 4 | Wave energy dissipated across the whole reefs as a
function of maximum incident wave energy. Only experiments for which
data were available in J m
2
were used (n ¼ 12). Trend line for the linear
regression is (y ¼ 0.97x; R
2
¼ 0.9). Both the x axis and the trend line
have been broken to help the display the relationship across the full
range of incident wave energy.
Reef flat width (m)
Reduction (%)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
−20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Wave energy
Wave height
Figure 5 | The effects of reef flat width on wave attenuation. Percent
reduction of both wave energy (n ¼ 21) and wave height (n ¼ 21) is
reported as a function of coral reef flat width. Only experiments for which
reef flat width was available were used. Each point is the percent wave
attenuation for each experiment with trend lines (wave energy
reduction: y ¼ 86.2 [1 e
( x/210.2)
]; and wave height reduction:
y ¼ 62.2 [1 e
( x/213.3)
]).
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794
4 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
defence such as low-crested breakwaters. Trade-offs with other
environmental considerations (for example, poor water quality in
stagnant waters behind breakwaters) often require that artificial
structures are designed to lower levels of effectiveness for coastal
defence than is technically feasible
40
. We find that restoring reefs
is significantly cheaper than building artificial breakwaters in
tropical environments. Our findings are consistent with recent
analyses from the re-insurance industry on the economics
of climate adaptation across eight Caribbean nations
6
. They
examined the costs and benefits of some 20 different approaches
for coastal risk reduction and adaptation from reef restoration to
new building codes. They found that reef restoration was always
substantially more cost effective than breakwaters across all eight
nations considering only coastal defence benefits. Moreover, reef
restoration was one of the most cost effective of all approaches in
seven of eight nations.
A full benefit:cost analysis of coastal defence alternatives that
includes coral reefs is desirable but not yet possible. For reef
restoration and even for breakwaters, there needs to be better
accounting for benefits such as fisheries and recreation. For reef
restoration, there needs to be better accounting for maintenance
costs and longer term measures of the success of restoration efforts.
These measures should consider the effects of restored reef depth
and roughness on wave attenuation, reef failure points during high-
energy events, and the recovery time periods and costs after these
events. Many gaps remain in designing reef restoration projects for
hazard mitigation, as very few projects have explicitly tried to
deliver benefits for both risk reduction and reef conservation. As
living structures, reefs have the potential for self-repair and thus
lower maintenance costs as compared with artificial structures, but
reef restoration is still a comparatively new field. Most measures of
reef restoration projects are limited to just the time period in which
a project is constructed (that is, one funding cycle) particularly in
developing countries where most reef restoration occurs. The
addition of ecosystem benefits and considerations of maintenance
costs in a full benefit:cost analysis would likely add to the relative
cost effectiveness of reefs for coastal defence.
Reefs face many growing pressures from development and
climate change. Some scientists question their viability in future
centuries
41
. This view has been criticized as too pessimistic
42
.In
considering the future of reefs, it has been noted that reefs will
not simply disappear, and the effects of climate change on reefs
will be species and site-specific
42
. There will also be strong
evolutionary pressure for adaptation of corals to climate
change
43
. The resilience of coral reefs to climate change can be
enhanced by removing other stressors
42,44–47
. Indeed, in many
Table 1 | Costs of construction or significant maintenance intervention for tropical breakwaters.
Location Source (refs) Length (m) Year Original cost ($) Cost* 2012 ($) 2012 Unit cost ($ m
1
)
Sri Lanka 64 16,000
w
1994
z
13,400,000 20,759,511 1,297
Maldives 16 1
y
1997
z
10,000 14,305 14,305
Haleiwa, Hawaii 65 58 1975 150,000 640,132 11,037
Hilo, Hawaii 65 3,073 1946 1,500,000 17,661,077 5,747
Kalaupapa, Hawaii 65 35 1967 95,000 653,037 18,658
Kawaihae, Hawaii 65 808 1973 6,000,000 31,026,216 38,399
Manele, Hawaii 65 143 1965 742,850 5,414,410 37,863
Nawiliwili, Hawaii 65 152 1959 1,000,000 7,889,828 51,907
Pohoiki, Hawaii 65 27 1979 335,500 1,061,003 39,296
Auasi, American Samoa 65 206 1981 1,166,300 2,945,825 14,300
Aunuu, American Samoa 65 27 1981 2,018,400 5,098,048 188,817
Tau, American Samoa 65 88 1981 2,020,400 5,103,099 57,990
Agana, Guam 65 221 1977 1,220,550 4,624,273 20,924
Sungai, Malaysia 66 1
y
2008 428 456 456
Korea 67 3,000 2010 124,000,000 130,561,214 43,520
Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand 68 40 2012 180,950 180,950 4,524
*Project costs were adjusted from year of project completion to 2012 US$ using the online inflation converter available at www.usinflationcalculator.com.
wInterventions located on the west coast of Sri Lanka (Negombo and Moratuwa).
zDate of construction unavailable. Year refers to when the cost estimate was determined in the source publication.
yCosts originally given in $ m
1
.
Table 2 | Costs of coral reef restoration projects.
Restoration technique Location Source
(refs)
Year Original cost
($ m
2
)
2012 Unit cost*
($ m
2
)
2012 Linear unit cost
w
($ m
1
)
Paving slabs þ chain-link fencing Maldives 62 1994 40 62 620
Armorflex Maldives 62 1994 103 159 1,590
Armorflex þ coral transplantation Maldives 62 1994 151 233 2,330
Concrete Blocks Maldives 62 1994 328 508 5,080
Concrete structures þ coral transplantation Florida 69 1991 550 927 927
Concrete structures þ coral transplantation Florida 69 1994 10,000 15,500
z
155,000
Rock stabilization Indonesia 70 2005 5 6 60
Reef Ball Various 70 2005 40 47 470
EcoReef Various 70 2005 70 82 820
Biorock Various 61 2005 1.6–110 2–129 20–1,290
*Project costs were adjusted from year of project completion to 2012 US$ using the online inflation converter available at www.usinflationcalculator.com.
wEstimated cost per 1 m length of shoreline enhancement: 2012 Unit cost 10; see Methods.
zThe costs of coral restoration alone were not published, hence this estimate also includes funding used for compensatory restoration and grounding prevention elsewhere in the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 5
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
cases, local threats are more significant than climate change in
terms of impacts to coral reefs, and these are more manageable
threats (for example, blast fishing, overexploitation of grazers,
pollution and sedimentation)
46–49
. It is also important to
consider that the current loss of coral reefs is lower than the
loss of other coastal habitats
50,51
, and reefs thus harbour
significant opportunities for conservation and restoration.
Coral reefs can be an effective first line of defence and these
benefits are important for many nations. Nearly 200 million
people may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs or bear costs
if the reefs are lost or degraded. A greater appreciation of the risk
reduction benefits from reefs should help motivate the local and
global actions needed to maintain and restore these ecosystems
and the services they provide. The link between actions (reef
structures rebuilt) and measures (wave attenuation) can be direct
and timely, which is often critical for adaptation and risk
reduction investments. Our analysis of existing studies suggests
that restoration for hazard mitigation and adaptation would be
particularly cost effective when focused along the reef crest, where
the greatest wave energy reduction can be achieved.
A management focus on reefs with the goal of providing risk
reduction and adaptation benefits, however, will require changes
in conservation and disaster risk reduction approaches. Although
conservation efforts are most often directed to more remote reefs,
our results suggest that there should also be a focus on reefs closer
to the people who will directly benefit from reef restoration and
management. Disaster risk reduction managers will also have
to focus more on prevention measures such as sustainable
development and environmental conservation, both are widely
recognized as important and cost effective but rarely acted upon
3
.
Methods
Literature search. To identify articles with sufficient quantitative data for asses-
sing wave attenua tion by coral reefs, we conducted a literature search using Web of
Science (1900–2013, cutoff date 20 October 2013). We systematically searched the
literature using a combination of the following keywords: ‘coral reef*’ with ‘wave
attenuation*’, ‘wave energy’ and ‘wave breaking’. We based the keyword selection
on the results of a wider preliminary literature search. We used meta-analysis to
combine the results of independent experiments and to assess the magnitude and
direction of the difference between pairs of treatment and control groups
52
.We
identified studies examining wave attenuation at different sites aligned along a
cross-reef transect from offshore (control) to onshore (treatment) (Fig. 1).
Detailed descriptions of the literature scre ening and characteristics of reef and
waves in the considered studies are provided in the Supplementary Methods.
Extensive data from the studies that we used in the analysis are provided in
Supplementary Data 1–3.
Wave attenuation measures
. We assessed two response variables to US measure
the wave attenuation service of coral reefs: wave energy reduction and wave height
reduction. Wave energy reduction and wave height reduction are functionally
related, and we analysed and provided data on both variables. Wave energy is the
most critical factor governing coastal processes and is particularly influenced by
water (reef) depth, wave breaking
53–56
and friction with the reef substrate
29,56
.
However, wave height reduction is a more easily understood parameter and also
used in many engineering applications; wave height reduction is particularly
influenced when the water depth is equal to half the wavelength (d ¼ l/2).
The energy of a wave is a function of its height as follows:
E ¼ 1=8 r gH
2
ð1Þ
where E is the wave energy density (hereafter just energy), r is water density,
g is gravitational acceleration and H is the significant wave height. For the sake of
comparison, the wave height data were all converted to the common metric H
1
3
,that
is, the significant wave height of the highest third of the waves (Supplementary
Methods).
Data extraction
. We estimated the influence of reefs on waves across three reef
environments: crest, flat and whole reef (Fig. 1). The effect of the reef crest on
Table 3 | Number of people who may receive risk reduction
benefits from coral reefs by country.
o10 m Elevation and o10 km
from reef
o10 m Elevation and o50 km
from reef
Country No. of people Country No. of people
Indonesia 19 Indonesia 41
India 17 India 36
Philippines 12 Philippines 23
Brazil 6 China 16
USA 3 Vietnam 9
Vietnam 2 Brazil 8
Tanzania 2 United States 7
China 2 Malaysia 5
Haiti 2 Sri Lanka 4
Cuba 2 Taiwan 3
Sri Lanka 2 Singapore 3
Singapore 1 Cuba 3
Japan 1 Hong Kong 2
Saudi Arabia 1 Tanzania 2
Kenya 1 Saudi Arabia 2
Top 15 74 Top 15 163
Global 100 Global 197
Values are the number of people living below 10 m elevation and within 10 or 50 km from reefs
(no. of people 1,000,000).
1 – 5
6 – 12
13 – 33
34 – 67
68 – 215
> 216
Coral reefs
Total Population
(x10,000)
Figure 6 | The number of people who may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs by country. The countries are grouped by the number of
people living below 10 m elevation and within 50 km of a coral reef as indicated in the legend. Countries in grey either have no data or no people
meeting these conditions. Global and country maps are accessible from www.maps.coastalresilience.org.
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794
6 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
waves was estimated by extracting data from wave sensors along transects offshore
(control) and inshore (treatment) of the reef crest (see Supplementary Methods for
further explanation). The effect of the reef flat was assessed by comparing waves
measured at points on the outer reef flat (control) to waves measured at points on
the inner reef flat adjacent to the shoreline (treatment). The effect of the whole reef
was estimated by comparing waves measured from the fore reef (control) to the
inner reef flat adjacent to the shoreline (treatment). Whenever possible, we also
examined effects by wave type, that is, swell (period ¼ 8–20 s) and wind
(period ¼ 3–8 s) waves, as the energy impacting structures varies by wave type
(Supplementary Methods).
We were not able to analyse the relationship between wave attenuation and
water depth, as explicit data on tidal elevations were not available from most
studies. However, we note that all studies and thus our analyses included
measurements covering multiple tidal cycles (and depths). We report reef and
wave characteristics of considered studies in Supplementary Methods and
Supplementary Fig. 4. In studies that did provide some information on reef depth,
the reef crest was always r2 m in depth, except in one case where the reef crest was
comparatively very deep (B5m).
Meta-analysis
. We used a random effects model for the meta-analyses, as most
sets of experiments were heterogeneous as determined by calculating, Q
T
(the total
heterogeneity), and testing it against a w
2
-distribution with n 1 degrees of
freedom
52
. For each independent experiment, we calculated the effect size as the
log-response ratio (ln R) and its corresponding weighting factor, calculated as the
reciprocal of the variance under the random model (Supplementary Methods)
57,58
.
The effect size was calculated by taking the natural logarithm of the ratio between
the mean of treatment (L, onshore) and the mean of control (S, offshore):
Log-response ratio ln RðÞ¼ln L=SðÞ: ð2Þ
For each analysis (for example,, overall effects of reef crest on wave energy), the
overall effect size (ln R) was calculated by summing the products (ln R of each
experiment its weighting factor ) and dividing by the sum of the weights
58
.The
log-response ratio (ln R) is a commonly used measure of effect size. It expresses the
size of the treatment effect as a proportion of the control
58
, which enables a clear
assessment of the magnitude of the effects of reefs on wave attenuation. In addition,
this measure of effect size (ln R) enables comparisons even when the data are in
different units (for example, J m
2
and percentages). Finally, ln R can be easily
converted to a percent reduction of wave energy or height using:
% Reduction ¼ 100 ðe
ln R
100Þ: ð3Þ
We report the results as percent reduction for wave energy and wave height,
and provide the overall log-response ratios in Supplementary Fig. 1. For each
response variable, we considered the overall effect size (ln R) to be statistically
significant (Po0.05) if its 95% confidence interval did not overlap zero.
All the analyses were also run using the Hedge’s g-effect size, another common
effect size in meta-analysis, to evaluate the robustness of the results (Supplementary
Methods, Supplementary Fig. 5). All analyses were done using R 2.11.1 (ref. 59).
Incident wave energy, reef flat width and wave attenuation
. We examined
whether the effects of coral reefs on wave attenuation were related to incident wave
energy by analysing the relationship between the maximum wave energy at off-
shore control sites and the corresponding percentage wave energy reduction at
inshore treatment sites for the three reef environments. Similarly, we examined
whether wave attenuation was a function of the reef flat width (see also
Supplementary Methods).
Comparing coral reefs to artificial coastal defences
. To compare the
effectiveness and costs of artificial structures and coral reefs, we searched published
literature (including grey literature) for wave attenuation and construction and
restoration costs. To compare effectiveness in wave attenuation, we focused on
submerged (low-crested) detached breakwaters because they are the most
comparable artificial structures to coral reefs in terms of structure height and
placement, that is, parallel and close to shore with a crest at or just below the water
surface
21
. Low-crested structures are relatively rare in tropical environments, but
they are common in Europe and growing in use elsewhere because of their lower
visual and environmental (water quality) impacts as compared with traditional
emergent breakwaters
40
. The wave attenuation efficiency of low-crested detached
breakwaters is measured by the transmission coefficient K
t
, which is the ratio of the
transmitted to the incident significant wave height (H
t
/H
i
). K
t
depends on design
parameters such as crest freeboard, crest width and structure permeability
60
, as well
as local wave height and period. We compared K
t
values between low-crested
structures (from our literature search) and coral reefs (from the meta-analysis) to
assess the effectiveness of these two classes of structu re in attenuating waves.
For cost comparisons, we compared the costs of building breakwaters with the
costs of restoration of coral reef structures. We focused on breakwa ters and reefs
built in tropical environments, as construction costs are often different between
temperate and tropical or island environments. For coral reefs, we only used
projects that restored structures (for example, with reef rubble or concrete blocks)
as opposed to projects that only restored coral species (for example, by
transplanting corals). The breakwater estimates come largely from the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
To consistently compare costs between artificial defences and reef restoration,
we converted figures to linear units (US$ m
1
) to be indicative of the costs to
enhance or protect lengths of shoreline (Suppl ementary Methods). Costs for
building breakwaters were usually reported in linear units (US$ m
1
), whereas
coral reef restoration project costs were reported in terms of restored area
(US$ m
2
). To convert the restoration figures to a unit length l (m
1
) of shoreline
enhanced, we assumed that an enhancement for l ¼ 1 m of shoreline protection
would require restoring a reef section that was 5 m wide by 2 m high by l ¼ 1m
(10 m
3
) of length parallel to shore (Goreau and Hilbertz
61
use similar width and
height figures for reef restoration for coastal protection). Many restoration projects
used stone or cement structures (for example, blocks) that were B1m
3
and then
reported costs (US$ m
2
) of arraying structures in a single layer on a reef
62
. Thus,
to obtain a reasonable proxy of costs per linear m of shoreline enhanced, we
considered that restoring 10 m
3
would require 10 the reported restoration cost
per m
2
. We tested for differences between reef restoration and breakwater
construction costs using a two sample t-test. Data were log transformed to meet
normality and variance homogeneity requirements.
Reefs and coastal populations
. We estimated the population that might receive
risk reduction benefits from coral reefs by mapping and quantifying the number of
people living in both low-lying areas below 10 m elevation and near reefs (for
example, Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Fig. 6). We examined two
different distances (10 and 50 km) from reefs in considering how many people
might receive risk reduction benefits from reefs.
In terms of risk reduction, we consider direct and indirect effects, but do so
conservatively. The most direct exposure reduction benefits (for example, wave
energy and flooding reduction) are often within just a few kilometres of reefs and
the coast (for example, 10 km). However, the number of people who might benefit
from the avoided replacement costs for coastal defence (that is, indirect exposure
benefits) extends well beyond those living in frequently flooded areas; the
populations bearing these coastal defence and replacement costs can include whole
provinces or island nations. Further indirect risk reduction benefits include the
effects from reduced population vulnerability because of the provision of livelihood
opportunities (for example, coastal jobs at ports, hotels or markets) and food
security. Typical examinations of global coastal populations consider areas 50 km
from the coastline or all areas below 10 m elevation no matter how far inland
63
.
All of our estimates of people who may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs
use more conservative estimates of coastal populations, because our analyses look
only at the intersection of people who are both in low exposed elevations and near
reefs off the coast.
References
1. Agardy, T. & Alder, J. in Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State &
Trends Vol. 1 (eds Hassan, R., Scholes, R. & Ash, N.) 513–549 (Island Press,
2005).
2. Young, I. R., Zieger, S. & Babanin, A. V. Global trends in wind speed and wave
height. Science 332, 451–455 (2011).
3. UNISDR. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction Vol. 178
(United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2011).
4. Hinkel, J. et al. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century
sea-level rise. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3292–3297 (2014).
5. Smith, J. B. et al. Development and climate change adaptation funding:
coordination and integration. Climate Policy 11, 987–1000 (2011).
6. CCRIF. Enhancing the Climate Risk and Adaptation Fact Base for the
Caribbean: Preliminary Results of the Economics of Climate Adaptation Study,
Vol. 28 (Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility, 2010).
7. van den Hoek, R. E., Brugnach, M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Shifting to ecological
engineering in flood management: Introducing new uncertainties in the
development of a building with nature pilot project. Environ. Sci. Policy 22,
85–99 (2012).
8. NYC Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency. Plan NYC: A Stronger,
More Resilient Vol. 438 (New York, NY, USA, 2013).
9. Temmerman, S. et al. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global
change. Nature 504, 79–83 (2013).
10. Gedan, K., Kirwan, M., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. & Silliman, B. The present and
future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering
recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim. Change 106, 7–29 (2010).
11. Shepard, C. C., Crain, C. M. & Beck, M. W. The protective role of coastal
marshes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 6, e27374 (2011).
12. Zhang, K. et al. The role of mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuar.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 102-103, 11–23 (2012).
13. Scyphers, S. B., Powers, S. P., Heck, Jr K. L. & Byron, D. Oyster reefs as natural
breakwaters mitigate shoreline loss and facilitate fisheries. PLoS One 6, e22396
(2011).
14. Barbier, E. B. et al. Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear
ecological functions and values. Science 319, 321–323 (2008).
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 7
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
15. McKee Smith, J., Jensen, R. E., Kennedy, A. B., Dietrich, J. C. & Westerink, J. J.
Waves in Wetlands: Hurricane Gustav (International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, 2010).
16. Wells, S., Ravilious, C. & Corcora n, E. In the Front Line: Shoreline Protection
and Other Ecosystem Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs Vol. 36 (UNEP-
WCMC, 2006).
17. Kennedy, E. V. et al. Avoiding coral reef functional collapse requires local and
global action. Curr. Biol. 23, 912–918 (2013).
18. Brown, B. E. & Dunne, R. P. The environmental impact of coral mining on
coral reefs in the Maldives. Environ. Conserv. 15, 159–165 (1988).
19. Frihy, O. E., Fanos, A. M., Khafagy, A. A. & AbuAesha, K. A. Human impacts
on the coastal zone of Hurghada, northern Red Sea, Egypt. Geo-Marine Lett. 16,
324–329 (1996).
20. Knight, D., Mitchell, B. & Wall, G. Bali: sustainable development, tourism and
coastal management. Ambio 26, 90–96 (1997).
21. Burcharth, H. F. & Hughes, S. A. in Coastal Engineering Manual 1110-2-1100
Vol. 6 (eds Hughes, S. A. & Szuwalski, A.) 1–363 (US Army Corps of Engineers,
2011).
22. Armono, H. D. & Hall, K. R. Wave Transmission on Submerged Breakwaters
Made of Hollow Hemispherical Shape Artificial Reefs 1–13 (Canadian Coastal
Conference, 2003).
23. Calabrese, M., Vicinanza, D. & Buccino, M. 2D wave setup behind submerged
breakwaters. Ocean Eng. 35, 1015–1028 (2008).
24. Zanuttigh, B., Losada, I. & Thompson, R. in Ecologically Based Approach to
Coastal Defence Design and Planning (eds McKee Smith, J. & Lynett, P.)
(International Conference on Coastal Engineering, 2010).
25. Irtem, E., Seyfioglu, E. & Kabdasli, S. Experimental investigation on the effects
of submerged breakwaters on tsunami run-up height. J. Coast. Res. SI 64,
516–520 (2011).
26. Hoeke, R., Storlazzi, C. & Ridd, P. Hydrodynamics of a bathymetrically
complex fringing coral reef embayment: wave climate, in situ observations, and
wave prediction. J. Geophys. Res. 116, C04018 (2011).
27. Storlazzi, C., Elias, E., Field, M. & Presto, M. Numerical modeling of the impact
of sea-level rise on fringing coral reef hydrodynamics and sediment transport.
Coral Reefs 30, 83–96 (2011).
28. Sheremet, A., Kaihatu, J. M., Su, S. F., Smith, E. R. & Smith, J. M. Modeling of
nonlinear wave propagation over fringing reefs. Coastal Eng. 58, 1125–1137
(2011).
29. Lowe, R. J., Falter, J. L., Koseff, J. R., Monismith, S. G. & Atkinson, M. J.
Spectral wave flow attenuation within submerged canopies: Implications for
wave energy dissipation. J. Geophys. Res. 112, C05018 (2007).
30. Lowe, R. J., Koseff, J. R. & Monismith, S. G. Oscillatory flow through
submerged canopies: 1. Velocity structure. J. Geophys. Res. 110, C10016 (2005).
31. Alvarez-Filip, L., Dulvy, N. K., Gill, J. A., Cote, I. M. & Watkinson, A. R.
Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: region-wide declines in architectural
complexity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 3019–3025 (2009).
32. Blanchon, P., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Jorda
´
n Dahlgren, E. & Richards, S. in
Vulnerabilidad de las Zonas Cost eras Mexicanas Ante el Cambio Clima
´
tico (eds
Botello, A. V., Villanueva-Fragoso, S., Gutie
´
rrez, J. & Rojas Galaviz, J. L.)
229–248 (Universidad Auto
´
noma de Campeche, 2010).
33. Sutherland, B. The Stormrider Surf Guide: Tropical Islands (Wilderness Press,
2013).
34. Madin, J. S. & Connolly, S. R. Ecological consequences of major hydrodynamic
disturbances on coral reefs. Nature 444, 477–480 (2006).
35. De’ath, G., Fabricius, K. E., Sweatman, H. & Puotinen, M. The 27-year decline
of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 109, 17995–17999 (2012).
36. Halford, A., Cheal, A. J., Ryan, D. & Williams, D. M. Resilience to large-scale
disturbance in coral and fish assemblages on the Great Barrier Reef. Ecology 85,
1892–1905 (2004).
37. Guillemot, N., Chabanet, P. & Le Pape, O. Cyclone effects on coral reef habitats
in New Caledonia (South Pacific). Coral Reefs 29, 445–453 (2010).
38. Moran, D. K., Salles, P., Sanchez, J. C. & Espinal, J. C. Beach nourishment
evolution in the Cancun beach, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Sixth international
symposium on coastal engineering and science of coastal sediment
process, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 2279–2291
(2007).
39. Sheppard, C., Dixon, D. J., Gourlay, M., Sheppard, A. & Payet, R. Coral
mortality increases wave energy reaching shores protected by reef flats:
examples from the Seychelles. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 64, 223–234 (2005).
40. Burcharth, H. F., Hawkins, S. J., Zanuttigh, B. & Lamberti, A. (eds)
Environmental Design Guidelines for Low Crested Coastal Structures Vol. 419
(Elsevier, 2007).
41. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean
acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).
42. Pandolfi, J. M., Connolly, S. R., Marshall, D. J. & Cohen, A. L. Projecting
coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification. Science 333,
418–422 (2011).
43. Barshis, D. J. et al. Genomic basis for coral resilience to clima te change. Proc.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 1387–1392 (2013).
44. Hughes, T. P. et al. Assembly rules of reef corals are flexible along a steep
climatic gradient. Curr. Biol. 22, 736–741 (2012).
45. Anthony, K. R. N., Kleypas, J. A. & Gattuso, J. P. Coral reefs modify their
seawater carbon chemistry - implications for impacts of ocean acidification.
Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3655–3666 (2011).
46. Gardner, T. A., Cote, I. M., Gill, J. A., Grant, A. & Watkinson, A. R. Hurricanes
and Caribbean coral reefs: Impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term
decline. Ecology 86, 174–184 (2005).
47. Mumby, P. J., Hastings, A. & Edwards, H. J. Thresholds and the resilience of
Caribbean coral reefs. Nature 450, 98–101 (2007).
48. Maina, J. et al. Human deforestation outweighs future climate change impacts
of sedimentation on coral reefs. Nat. Commun. 4, 1986 (2013).
49. Haisfield, K. M., Fox, H. E., Yen, S., Mangubhai, S. & Mous, P. J. An ounce of
prevention: cost-effectiveness of coral reef rehabilitation relative to
enforcement. Conserv. Lett. 3, 243–250 (2010).
50. Airoldi, L. & Beck, M. W. in Oceanography and Marine Biology Vol. 45 (eds
Gibson, R. N., Atkinson, R. J. A. & Gordon, J. D. M.) 345–405 (CRC Press-
Taylor & Francis Group, 2007).
51. Beck, M. W. et al.
Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation,
restoration, and management. Bioscience 61, 107–116 (2011).
52.Rosenberg,M.S.,Adams,D.C.&Gurevitch,J.MetaWin: Statistical Software for
Meta-Analysis Version 2 (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2000).
53. Young, I. R. Wave transformation over coral reefs. J. Geophys. Res. 94,
9779–9789 (1989).
54. Hardy, T. A. & Young, I. R. Field study of wave attenuation on an offshore coral
reef. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 14311–14326 (1996).
55. Massel, S. R. & Gourlay, M. R. On the modelling of wave breaking and set-up
on coral reefs. Coastal Eng. 39, 1–27 (2000).
56. Lowe, R. J. et al. Spectral wave dissipation over a barrier reef. J. Geophys. Res.
110, C04001 (2005).
57. Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios
in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999).
58. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. Introduction
to Meta-Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2009).
59. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2012).
Available from: www.r-project.org.
60. van der Meer, J. W., Briganti, R., Zanuttigh, B. & Wang, B. Wave trans mission
and reflection at low-crested structures: Design formulae, oblique wave attack
and spectral change. Coastal Eng. 52, 915–929 (2005).
61. Goreau, T. J. & Hilbertz, W. Marine ecosystem restoration :costs and benefits for
coral reefs. World Res. Rev. 17, 375–409 (2005).
62. Clark, S. & Edwards, A. J. An evaluation of artificial reef structures as tools for
marine habitat rehabilitation in the Maldives. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw.
Ecosyst. 9, 5–21 (1999).
63. McGranahan, G., Balk, D. & Anderson, B. The rising tide: assessing the risks of
climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ.
Urban. 19, 17–37 (2007).
64. Berg, H., Ohman, M. C., Troeng, S. & Linden, O. Environmental economics of
coral reef destruction in Sri Lanka. Ambio 27, 627–634 (1998).
65. Sargent, F. E., Markle, D. G. & Grace, P. J. Case Histories of Corps Breakwater
and Jetty Structures (US Army Corps of Engineers, Washi ngton, DC. Report
No.: Technical Report REMR-CO-3, 1988).
66. Hashim, R., Kamali, B., Tamin, N. M. & Zakaria, R. An integrated approach to
coastal rehabilitation: mangrove restoration in Sungai Haji Dorani, Malaysia.
Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 86, 118–124 (2010).
67. Suh, K. D., Kim, K. S. & Kim, D. L. Effects of discount rate and various costs on
optimal design of caisson breakwater. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 14, 99–109 (2010).
68. Saengsupavanich, C. Detached breakwaters: communities’ preferences for
sustainable coastal protection. J. Environ. Manage. 115, 106–113 (2012).
69. Spurgeon, J. P. G. & Lindhal, U. in Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral
Reefs (ed. Cesar, H. S. J.) 125–136 (CORDIO, Department for Biology and
Environmental Sciences, Kalmar University, 2000).
70. Fox, H. E., Mous, P. J., Pet, J. S., Muljadi, A. H. & Caldwell, R. L. Experimental
assessment of coral reef rehabilitation following blast fishing. Conserv. Biol. 19,
98–107 (2005).
Acknowledgements
F.F. was supported in part by a Marco Polo Fellowship (Bologna University) and a
Nature Conservancy Fellowship. M.W.B. and F.M. were supported in part by Pew
Marine Fellowships. C.D.S. was funded by the US Geological Survey’s Coastal
and Marine Geology Program. L.A. was supported by the project THESEUS
(EU—FP7—ENV2009-1, grant no. 244104) and by a Fulbright Fellowship while
writing the paper. M.W.B. and C.C.S. were supported in part a grant from the
Anne Ray Charitable Trust. We thank Louise Firth, Barbara Zanuttigh, Jon Warrick
and Peter Kareiva for their incisive reviews, and Francesco Ferretti, Beth Strain,
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794
8 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Russell Thompson and Ben Gilmer for their timely advice on statistical and
geospatial analysis.
Author contributions
M.W.B., L.A. and F.F. designed the research; F.F. performed the research; F.F. and C.D.S.
collected the data; F.F., F.M., and C.C.S. analysed the data; F.F., M.W.B., C.D.S., C.C.S.,
F.M. and L.A. wrote the paper.
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper at http://www.nature.com/
naturecommunications
Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Reprints and permission information is available online at http://npg.nature.com/
reprintsandpermissions/
How to cite this article: Ferrario, F. et al. The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal
hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nat. Commun. 5:3794 doi: 10.1038/ncomms4794
(2014).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under
the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license
holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3794 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 9
& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.