Embracing dynamic design for climate‐resilient living shorelines

Abstract

As natural marshes are lost to erosion, sea level rise, and human activity, small created marshes, (sometimes with ancillary stabilization structures, and frequently called living shorelines) have gained interest as a replacement habitat; providing both shoreline stabilization and restoration of important ecological functions. These living shorelines enhance ecological function while reducing erosion through the use of marsh plants (Table 1). In all but the lowest energy settings, oyster reefs, low rock structures, or other stabilizing material are frequently used to enhance marsh establishment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Access at: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13371

Full text

J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:1099–1105.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jpe
|
1099
1 | INTRODUCTION
As natural marshes are lost to erosion, sea level rise, and human
activity, small created marshes, (sometimes with ancillary stabiliza-
tion structures, and frequently called living shorelines) have gained
interest as a replacement habitat; providing both shoreline stabili-
zation and restoration of important ecological functions. These liv-
ing shorelines enhance ecological function while reducing erosion
through the use of marsh plants (Table 1). In all but the lowest en-
ergy settings, oyster reefs, low rock structures, or other stabiliz-
ing material are frequently used to enhance marsh establishment.
Due to their ability to stabilize the shoreline with minimal impact to
the ecology, living shorelines are considered a method to increase
coastal community resilience to sea level rise (e.g., Sutton- Grier,
Wowk, & Bamford, 2015; Van Slobbe et al., 2013) but little consid-
eration is being given to living shoreline resilience under changing
climate. Although it has been stated that living shorelines have the
capacity to adapt to rising sea levels (e.g., Moosavi, 2017; Sutton-
Grier et al., 2015; Toft, Bilkovic, Mitchell, & La Peyre, 2017), their
ability to fulfill this potential relies on being designed to incorporate
all the processes occurring in natural systems. The extent to which
living shorelines c an mimic the resiliency of natural marshes and oys-
ter reefs will depend on their setting, design and the type of human
maintenance provided. Truly resilient projects will require engineers
and ecologists to work together to describe the dynamics of shore-
line processes under sea level rise and translate this understanding
into living shoreline design.
The potential for living shorelines to self- adapt to rising sea
levels comes from their biotic components. When properly con-
structed, living shorelines provide a plethora of ecological services
through their biotic components, including: nursery, nesting
and feeding habitat (Bilkovic & Mitchell, 2017; Davis, Takacs, &
Schnabel, 2006; Gittman et al., 2015); filtering of sediments and
nutrients from waterways (Beck, Chambers, Mitchell, & Bilkovic,
2017); reduction of wave energy (Gedan, Kirwan, Wolanski,
Barbier, & Silliman, 2011; Gittman, Popowich, Bruno, & Peterson,
2014); and carbon storage (Davis, Currin, O'Brien, Raffenburg, &
Davis, 2015). In this respect, they have the potential to provide
ecological functions that are similar to natural marshes and it is
tempting to assume that living shorelines incorporate all the same
dynamic processes. However, living shorelines are engineered
systems which frequently differ from natural coastal marshes in a
few key elements: (a) Plantings are done on a grid, so initial plant
density is controlled by design, not inundation; (b) living shore-
lines typically have a gradual, constant slope while natural shore-
lines (particularly in erosional areas) often have a scarped edge
and complex microtopography; (c) living shorelines frequently
have associated engineered structures designed to mitigate wave
energy, which can affect sedimentation and faunal settlement
patterns. These differences can translate into a system which is
stable in the short term, but may have difficulty adapting to a
changing environment.
Much of the monitoring or assessment of living shorelines is
related to ensuring ecological functions (habitat, nutrient transfor-
mations) are equivalent to those of natural marshes; however, as-
sessments of living shoreline sustainability are equally important.
Natural coastal marshes are dynamic systems, with some natural
adaptation to sea level rise realized through feedback loops (Morris,
2007) involving plant production and sediment capture that result in
marsh vertical growth (accretion) and migration into adjacent lands
Received:20August2018
|
Accepted:4February2019
DOI: 10.1111/1365 -266 4.13371
PRACTITIONER'S PERSPECTIVE
Embracing dynamic design for climate- resilient living shorelines
Molly Mitchell | Donna Marie Bilkovic
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia
Correspondence
Molly Mitchell
Email: molly@vims.edu
Handling Editor: Rute Pinto
KEY WORDS
climate change, coastal resilience, defenses, erosion, green infrastructure, marsh, nature-based, sea level rise
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society

1100
|
Journal of Applied Ecology
MITCHELL an d BILKOVIC
TABLE1 Comparison of different shoreline stabilization methods
Potential functions
Dissapates wave
energy
Prevents
flooding
Reduces
erosion
Provides
native habitat
Supports
native
populations
Provides
foreign
habitats, may
promote
invasion
Prevents
faunal access
to shoreline
Living
organism
subjec t to
disease
Potentially
sel f-
sustaining
under SLR
Living shorelines
Marsh
MHW
MLW
Yes, amount
depends on
marsh width
No Depends on
setting (Yes in
low energy)
Yes Yes No (typically) No Yes Yes, with
retreat
corridor
Marsh with rock sill
MHW
MLW
+0.3m MHW
Yes No Ye s Depends on
setting (Yes
on rocky
coast)
Yes, although
possibly
reduced
Depends on
setting
Reduces
access
Partially Marsh only,
with retreat
corridor
Marsh with oyster sill
MHW
MLW
Yes, amount
depends on
marsh width
No Yes Yes Yes No (typically) No Yes Both, but
marsh
requires
retreat
corridor
Traditional hardening
Rock Revetment
MHW
MLW
Yes No Ye s Depends on
setting (Yes
on rocky
coast)
Possible Depends on
setting
Replaces
shoreline
No No, and may
prevent
retreat of
other
habitats
Timber/concrete Bulkhead
MHW
MLW
Reflects energy Depends
on
design/
height
Yes No Possible Yes Replaces
shoreline
No No, and may
prevent
retreat of
other
habitats

|
1101
Journal of Applied Ecology
MITCHELL an d BILKOVIC
wherepossible(Figure1).In contrast,living shorelinesaret ypically
engineered as static systems that reduce erosion and mimic the flora
(primarily) and the fauna (secondarily) of natural marshes, but with
little e mphasis on creating t he characteris tics of natural marshes that
allow for self- evolution under changing water levels. Appropriate
design of living shorelines should enhance longevity by embracing
the dynamic characteristics of natural marshes and leveraging nat-
ural feedback loops to maximize sediment accretion and stabiliza-
tion (Bilkovic & Mitchell, 2017). In this article, we draw on scientific
literature and practical experience with living shoreline design and
application to make recommendations for how living shorelines can
be sited, built and maintained to be resilient to sea level rise.
2 | LIVING SHORELINE SITING IS
CRITICAL FOR ENHANCED LONGEVITY
Longevity of living shorelines under sea level rise is largely depend-
ent on their location in the coastal system. There are three siting
factors that affect persistence: (a) wave energy at the site, (b) the po-
tential for upland marsh retreat, and (c) the sediment supply (which
is critical for marsh accretion). Ideally, living shorelines should be
placed to minimize wave energy and maximize the other two factors
(Figure2).Rocksilloroysterreefstructurescanbeusedtomitigate
high wave energy and maximize sediment capture, but cannot com-
pletely compensate for poor siting.
Living shorelines are most appropriate in low to moderate en-
ergy settings since plants have difficulty establishing and thriving
in high energy areas (Currin, Davis, & Malhotra, 2017). This means
that most estuarine, riverine or creek settings should be appro-
priate, assuming that the shorelines are not subject to high wave
energy. The exception is the outer bends of river meanders, where
water flow can be swift and natural processes lead to erosion and
migration of the bend. With appropriately- sized structures, living
shorelines have been built in open coastal areas. However, their
long- term prognosis under sea level rise may be difficult to pre-
dict. These areas are subject to high wave energy and although
structures placed channelward of the marsh can reduce wave en-
ergy somewhat, coastal sediment dynamics can also be very dif-
ferent from the more sheltered coastlines where natural marshes
are typically found. Alongshore sand movement and barrier island
migration are both important processes on open coasts that are
critical components of coastal resilience but are not compatible
with stabilized living shoreline design. The development of dy-
namic living shoreline designs specifically for high- energy coastal
areas, such as barrier islands, would have enormous resilience
potential.
Marsh retreat potential is linked to local land use and sur-
rounding elevations (Mitchell, Herman, Bilkovic, & Hershner,
2017). Living shorelines built in low elevation areas will naturally
be able to migrate landward, as long as the surrounding land
use is compatible. The adjacent upland/riparian area should be
preserved as natural lands, ideally populated with native grass
or shrubs. Marshes can migrate into forested riparian areas, but
shade from the trees can slow migration and competition from
invasive species (e.g. Smith, 2013) can alter the floral commu-
nity. There may be plants that enhance the migration of marsh
flora that could be planted in riparian zones and research on
this topic would be timely. Steeper elevations or impervious
surfaces (roads, driveways, buildings, etc.) interrupt the marsh
retreat corridor and should be avoided where possible. In areas
where there are sharp inclines, elevation breaks, or retaining
walls in the riparian zone, grading of the land may be possible to
create a gentle slope and ensure that the marsh isn't compressed
during migration. Where living shorelines are backed by bluffs,
migration won't be a viable process and significant accretion
(equivalent to sea level rise rates) will be crucial to maintain the
marsh.
Another important siting factor for living shoreline persistence
is local sediment supply. This is particularly critical where marsh
retreat is limited. Sediment from both the waterway and the sur-
rounding upland can be captured, contributing to marsh accretion.
Accretion slowly raises the surface of the marsh over time, and
can keep it in the proper position in the tidal frame. Accretion in-
creases with time of submergence (Temmerman, Govers, Wartel,
& Meire, 2004) and with increased plant productivity (Kirwan &
Murray, 2007; Morris, Sundareshwar, Nietch, Kjerfve, & Cahoon,
2002), both processes increase with sea level rise. Together
these processes can contribute significantly to marsh persistence
under moderate sea level rise (Gedan et al., 2011). However, in
areas where sea level rise is accelerating (Boon & Mitchell, 2015),
high sediment supply will be an important consideration when
FIGURE1 Dynamic processes help
natural marshes adapt to rising sea level.
Tall, dense marsh plants dissipate wave
energy and collect sediment, allowing
the marsh surface elevation to increase.
Their roots also contribute to accretion.
Natural, low elevation lands allow marshes
to retreat into upland areas as sea level
rises. This maintains marsh extent under
changing conditions

1102
|
Journal of Applied Ecology
MITCHELL an d BILKOVIC
migration potential is limited, so consideration should be given to
the surrounding shorelines. Local sediment supply can be greatly
reduced by shoreline and bank stabilization, such as retaining
walls or bulkheads; therefore, living shorelines in front of or ad-
jacent to unstablilized banks should be more resilient than those
where bulkheads and revetments are pervasive. It is also import-
ant to consider local conditions that might lead to high subsidence
at the marsh location. Marshes persist in areas where the surface
accretion is higher than the subsidence rate plus the local sea
level rise rate. Some subsidence rates, such as subsidence due to
glacial isostatic rebound, are widespread with reliable estimates
of magnitude (Piecuch et al., 2018). However, subsidence rates
can vary greatly on small scales (20–30 m, Bekaert, Hamlington,
Buzzanga, & Jones, 2017) due to local processes such as ground-
water withdrawals. In marsh sediments, some subsidence is due
to the breakdown of organic material (Morris, 2007); this should
be a minor issue for living shorelines since most of them are
built on inorganic sediment surfaces and take years (>8 year) to
develop typical marsh sediments (Beck et al., 2017). Locally high
subsidence rates result in an increased rate of relative sea level
rise in the affected area. Living shorelines in these areas will re-
quire higher accretion rates to compensate for the sea level rise
and this should be taken into account during project design.
3 | DYNAMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Living shorelines can be designed to take advantage of natural pro-
cesses that enhance sediment accretion, marsh surface elevation,
marsh stability and adaptability. Plant growth is an important mod-
erator of all of these characteristics; therefore marsh plantings are
integral to living shoreline sustainability. Plant height and density
are positively related to the marshes ability to dissipate wave en-
ergy (Gedan et al., 2011), which can increase sediment capture (as
long as there is sufficient sediment supply) and stimulate accretion.
Plants also contribute organic matter to the sediment through root
FIGURE2 Comparison of retreat potential for living shorelines. (a) This living shoreline was constructed adjacent to natural marshes
and on a low elevation shoreline with ample opportunity for retreat. However, the somewhat sparse grass may limit its ability to accrete
sediment. (b) This marsh is in front of a bluff, which cuts off the retreat pathway but provides sediment for accretion. (c) This living shoreline
is built in front of a block retaining wall that cuts off the retreat pathway. Survival under sea level rise will require sufficient sediment
accretion to maintain its elevation within the tidal frame
(a) (b)
(c)

|
1103
Journal of Applied Ecology
MITCHELL an d BILKOVIC
production, taking up space in the sediment and raising the sur-
face elevation (Baustian, Mendessohn, & Hester, 2012). Maximizing
plant height and root growth requires appropriate nutrient availabil-
ity. Adding fertilizer to the initial plantings may help maximize plant
productivity (Priest, 2017), at least in the early years (2–3 year) after
creation. Living shorelines that are partially groundwater- fed may
benefit from natural fertilization since they have been shown to re-
move nitrogen from the groundwater (Beck et al., 2017). Maximizing
plant density could be achieved through denser initial planting or
encouraging plant spread. Adjusting planting configurations, such as
planting marsh vegetation in clumps rather than evenly dispersed,
may promote high density plant growth and rapid expansion (Silliman
et al., 2015).
Sediment stability is important to prevent marsh erosion and
create a stable base for accretion. Edge stabilization is frequently
achieved through the use of a rock or oyster sill structures. Sill in-
clusion in living shorelines can enhance sediment deposition and
accretion, given sufficient sediment supply and wave reduction ca-
pacity (Currin, Delano, & Valdes- Weaver, 2008), and therefore may
help increase their resilience. Marsh- wide, sediment stability can be
enhanced by root production which helps to bind the sediment to-
gether. In some living shorelines, there may also be fauna that can
help bind sediments, such as ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa),
which are considered important components of natural marsh sta-
bility (Bertness, 1984). Encouraging the settlement of these species
may increase marsh stability; however, the construction of ancillary
stabilization structures (e.g., rock sills) in living shorelines is likely
one contributing factor to observed low recruitment of mussels
in living shoreline by reducing larval access to the marsh surface
(Bilkovic & Mitchell, 2017). This suggests that using sills to increase
edge stability has the potential to affect marsh- wide stability.
However, with careful design, impacts from sills can be minimized;
enhancing overall marsh resilience. When sills are necessary or de-
sirable to promote sediment accretion and reduce erosion, the use
of low elevation sills or low elevation “windows” in the sills should
be considered to maximize faunal access to the marsh. Although sills
can enhance living shoreline resilience, their effectiveness may de-
cline over time. Rock sills are static structures; as sea level rises,
their elevation in the tidal frame and their effectiveness in reducing
wave energy will be reduced. Adding biotic components (e.g. oys-
ters) can create a dynamic reef sill (Hall, Beine, & Ortego, 2017) that
maintains its elevations under rising sea levels. The oysters also add
roughness and complexity to sills, creating natural habitat and dissi-
pating wave energy (Whitman & Reidenbach, 2012).
The slope of the living shoreline marsh and the way in which
water enters and leaves the marsh may also affect its resilience.
Living shorelines typically have more “perfect” slopes than natu-
ral marshes and the high and low marsh widths are controlled by
design, not natural feedback loops. Water access may be through
more constricted channels than in natural marshes, leading to
changes in inundation periods, sedimentation patterns and plant
species distributions. All of these factors can affect the living
shoreline's response to sea level rise. At this time, there is little
research addressing this issue. One model, which looked at the
persistence of a created marsh under sea level rise, suggested that
a consistent slope and controlled inundation can lead to a prob-
lematic response to sedimentation under accelerated sea level
(Vandenbruwaene et al., 2011). As mentioned above, accretion is
expected to increase with increasing inundation (under sea level
rise); if this is not happening, the living shoreline will eventually
drown. More studies of this issue should be done, both models
and field tests of different grading plans (e.g. flatter gradients or
more microtography) and water access designs should be studied.
Ultimately, achieving the dynamic design necessary for sea level
rise resilience requires a change in attitude by engineers and property
owners . Since shoreline s tabilization is t ypically mea nt to “hold the line”
against changing coastal boundaries, there is an expectation that the
initial design is also the final design of the project. To truly incorporate
sea level rise into a living shoreline requires acceptance and tolerance
by the prop erty owners fo r a dynamic stabilization technique—i.e. their
sand and plants may move around over time by design. These shifts
are necessary for the living shorelines to be resilient to storms and
long- term changes in sea level. Natural succession of plant and animal
species and landward retreat of marsh plants should be expected and
part of the initial design (Bilkovic, Mitchell, Mason, & Duhring, 2016).
4 | MAINTENANCE
Although the goal is to design living shorelines that naturally accrete
and retreat with rising sea levels, it is unrealistic to think this can be
achieved in all places and human maintenance of living shorelines
may be necessary. Studies of natural marshes show that sea level
rise is accelerating at stressful rates in some areas, leading to marsh
loss (Mitchell et al., 2017); this is likely also going to be a problem
for the living shorelines in the absence of intervention. Long- term
augmentation of living shoreline accretion rates may be possible
through thin- layer dredge disposal. This is one method that has
been used to raise natural marsh elevations (Croft, Leonard, Alphin,
Cahoon,&Posey,2006;Ford, Cahoon,&Lynch,1999),andmaybe
applicable to living shoreline resilience. In this process, a thin deposit
of sediment is sprayed over the marsh surface, with the idea that it
will be captured by the vegetation, enhancing marsh accretion. The
transferability of this technique to living shorelines needs more re-
search. Even if technically feasible, thin layer dredge disposal may
be too expensive and labor intensive for smaller projects. In addi-
tion, the depth of the sediment deposit and frequency of application
would need to be assessed for each project since local rates of sea
level rise and subsidence can vary on small spatial scales.
5 | CONCLUSIONS
Tidal marshes are naturally adaptive systems that alter their loca-
tion and elevation to fit changing sea levels. Embracing the dynamic
characteristics of these systems when designing living shorelines

1104
|
Journal of Applied Ecology
MITCHELL an d BILKOVIC
will result in more resilient shoreline designs. Considering longevity
in both project siting and project design is critical to ensuring shore-
line protection and the continuation of ecological services from liv-
ing shorelines. Key considerations include:
• Siting that allows for landward marsh retreat with rising sea levels,
wherever possible
• Healthy and appropriate plant communities that can stabilize and
accrete sediments with consideration of species diversity and den-
sity of plantings to maximize productivity and sediment accretion
• Sill structures designed to enhance sedimentation while not limit-
ing faunal use of the marsh, including the use of “windows” in the
sill to promote faunal movement; and which include biotic compo-
nents, such as oysters, allowing adaptation to rising sea levels
• An improved societal understanding of the benefits of dynamic
shoreline protection designs
Living shorelines are rapidly populating our coasts, and are in-
creasingly being considered critical components of flood wave reduc-
tion and erosion protection for coastal communities (Sutton- Grier
et al., 2015). The resilience of these coastal communities is reliant on
the resilience of their living shorelines. A key element mentioned in
this paper is the need for the integration of ecologist and engineers
in the design of living shorelines. This need has been recognized (e.g.
Airoldi et al., 2005; Bilkovic & Mitchell, 2017; Moosavi, 2017) and
there are a few examples of it being put into practice (Chapman &
Blockl ey,20 09; Firt h etal., 2014). However, there is ro om for im-
provement. We recommend three steps towards achieving this goal.
First,as mentioned inToftetal.(2017) the creationof“virtual”fo-
rums can help facilitate discussion across disciplines. Second, fund-
ing agencies can promote transdisciplinary research through their
funding programs. Third, universities can break down barriers be-
tween their educational tracks and make cross- disciplinary learning
more accessible. These actions could help change the landscape of
living shoreline design, resulting in more sustainable coastlines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The comments of the editor and two anonymous reviewers helped im-
prove the manuscript. Conclusions in this article were drawn partially
fromresearchsupportedbyNSFgrant160 0131.ThisisContribution
No. 3810 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
M.M. and D.M.B. conceived the ideas for this manuscript. M.M. led
the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to
the drafts and gave final approval for publication.
DATA ACCESSIBILITY
Data have not been archived because this article does not contain
data.
BIOSKETCHES
M. Mitchell is an ecologist who researches wetlands, how they
change and adapt under sea level rise, and how we can create sys-
tems that mimic the important processes of the natural wetland
systems, with a particular emphasis on the plant communities.
D.M. Bilkovic is an ecologist and associate professor at Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. She has worked on multiple aspects
of the ecology of coastal habitats and assemblages. She does re-
search on improving the understanding of social- ecological feed-
backs that erode or strengthen coastal resilience, and the role of
living shorelines as habitat conservation strategies.
Together they have co- edited a book on living shorelines, authored
papers on living shoreline management and both have been lectur-
ers on living shoreline at numerous educational and outreach ven-
ues. They also provide advice to state, loc al and public entities about
the impacts of different shoreline solutions on the natural system.
ORCID
Molly Mitchell https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4210-285X
Donna Marie Bilkovic https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-1901
REFERENCES
Airoldi, L., Abbiati, M., Beck, M. W., Hawkins, S. J., Jonsson, P. R., Martin,
D., … Åberg, P. (2005). An ecological perspective on the deployment
and design of low- crested and other hard coastal defence struc-
tures. Coastal Engineering, 52, 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coastaleng.2005.09.007
Baustian, J. J., Mendessohn, I. A., & Hester, M. W. (2012). Vegetation's
importance in regulating surface elevation in a coastal salt marsh
facing elevated rates of sea level rise. Global Change Biology, 18 (11),
3377–3382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486 .2012 .02792 .x
Beck, A . J., Chambers, R. M., Mitchell, M. M., & Bilkovic, D. M. (2017).
Evaluation of Living Shoreline Marshes as a Tool for Reducing
Nitrogen Pollution in Coastal Systems. In Living shorelines: the sci-
ence and m anagement of nature -based coastal protec tion, pp 271-290.
Bekaer t, D. P. S., Hamlington, B. D., Buzzanga, B., & Jones, C. E.
(2017). Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar survey of subsidence
in Hampton Roads, Virginia (USA). Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14752.
https://doi.org /10.1038/s41598-017-15309-5
Bertness, M. D. (1984). Ribbed mussels and Spartina alterniflora produc-
tion in a New England salt marsh. Ecology, 65(6), 1794–1807. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1937776
Bilkovic, D. M., & Mitchell, M. M. (2017). Designing living shoreline salt
marsh ecosystems to promote coastal resilience. In D. M. Bilkovic, M.
M. Mitchell, M. K. La Peyre, & J. D. Toft (Eds.), Living shorelines: The sci-
ence and managemen t of nature-based coas tal protection (pp. 293–316).
BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315151465
Bilkovic, D. M., Mitchell, M., Mason, P., & Duhring, K. (2016). The role of
living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. Coastal
Management, 44(3), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.20
16.1160201
Boon, J. D., & Mitchell, M. (2015). Nonlinear change in sea level observed
at North American tide stations. Journal of Coastal Research, 31(6),
1295–1305. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00041.1

|
1105
Journal of Applied Ecology
MITCHELL an d BILKOVIC
Chapman, M. G., & Blockley, D. G. (2009). Engineering novel habitats
on urban infrastructure to increase intertidal biodiversity. Oecologia,
161, 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1393-y
Croft, A. L., Leonard, L. A., Alphin, T. D., Cahoon, L. B., & Posey, M. H.
(2006). The effects of thin layer sand renourishment on tidal marsh
processes: Masonboro Island, North Carolina. Estuaries and Coasts,
29(5),737–750.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02786525
Currin, C. A., Davis, J., & Malhotra, A. (2017). Response of salt marshes
to wave energy provides guidance for successful living shoreline
implementation. In D. M. Bilkovic, M. M. Mitchell, M. K. La Peyre,
& J. D. Toft (Eds.), Living shorelines: The S cience and management of
nature-based coastal protection(pp. 211–234).Boca Raton,FL: CRC
Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315151465
Currin, C. A., Delano, P. C., & Valdes-Weaver, L. M. (20 08). Utilization of
a citizen monitoring protocol to assess the structure and function
of natural and stabilized fringing salt marshes in North Carolina.
Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16 (2), 97–118. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11273-007-9059-1
Davis, J. L., Currin, C. A., O'Brien, C., Raffenburg, C., & Davis, A. (2015).
Living shorelines: Coastal resilience with a blue carbon benefit.
PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0142595
Davis, J. L., Takacs, R. L., & Schnabel, R. (2006). Evaluating ecological im-
pacts of living shorelines and shoreline habitat elements: an example
from the upper western Chesapeake Bay. In Management, policy, sci-
ence, an d engineering of no nstructural eros ion control in the Che sapeake
Bay (p. 55).
Firth, L. B.,Thompson, R. C., Bohn, K., Abbiati, M., Airoldi, L., Bouma,
T. J., … Ferrario, F. (2014). Between a rock and a hard place:
Environmental and engineering considerations when designing
coastal defence structures. Coastal Engineering, 87, 122–135. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.10.015
Ford, M. A ., Cahoon, D. R., & Lynch ,J.C. (1999).Restoringmarsh ele-
vation in a rapidly subsiding salt marsh by thin- layer deposition of
dredged material1. Ecological Engineering, 12(3–4), 189–205. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00061-5
Gedan, K. B., Kirwan, M. L., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. B., & Silliman, B.
R. (2011). The present and future role of coastal wetland vegeta-
tion in protecting shorelines: Answering recent challenges to the
paradigm. Climatic Change, 106(1), 7–29. h ttp s://d oi. org /10.10 07/
s10584-010-0003-7
Gittm an, R. K., Fod rie, F. J., Popowich, A . M., Keller, D. A., Br uno, J.
F., Currin, C. A., … Piehler, M. F. (2015). Engineering away our
natural defenses: An analysis of shoreline hardening in the US.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(6), 301–307. https://doi.
org /10.1890/150065
Gittman, R. K.,Popowich,A .M., Bruno,J.F., &Peterson, C. H. (2014).
Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from
erosion better than bulkheads during a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean
& Coastal Management, 102, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2014.09.016
Hall, S. G., Beine, R., Campbell, M., Ortego, T., & Risinger, J. D.. (2017).
Growing living shorelines and ecological services via coastal bioengi-
neering. In D. M. Bilkovic, M. M. Mitchell, M. K. La Peyre & J. D. Toft
(Eds.), Living shorelines: The science and management of n ature-based
coastal protection(pp.249–270).BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.https://
doi.org/10.1201/9781315151465
Kirwan, M. L., & Murray, A. B. (2007). A coupled geomorphic and eco-
logical model of tidal marsh evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 10 4(15), 6118–
6122. https://doi.org /10.1073/pnas.0700958104
Mitchell, M., Herman, J., Bilkovic, D. M., & Hershner, C. (2017). Marsh
persis tence under sea- level rise is controlled by multiple, geologically
variable stressors. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(10),
1379888. ht tps://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2017.1396009
Moosavi, S. (2017). Ecological coastal protection: Pathways to liv-
ing shorelines. Procedia Engineering, 196 , 930–938. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.027
Morris, J. T. (2007). Ecological engineering in intertidal saltmarshes. In
P. Viaroli, P. Lasserre, & P. Campostrini (Eds.), Lagoons and coastal
wetlands in the global change context: Impacts and management is-
sues (pp. 161–168). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4020-600 8-3
Morris, J. T., Sundareshwar, P. V., Nietch, C. T., Kjerf ve, B., & Cahoon, D. R.
(2002). Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology, 83(10),
2869–2877. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2869:ROC
WTR]2.0.CO;2
Piecuch , C. G., Huyb ers, P., Hay, C. C., Kemp, A. C ., Little, C . M., Mitrovic a,
J. X., … Tingley, M. P. (2018). Origin of spatial variation in US East
Coast sea- level trends during 1900–2017. Nature, 564(7736), 400.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0787-6
Priest III, W. I. (2017). Practical living shorelines. In Living Shorelines: The
Science and Management of Nature-Based Coastal Protection (pp. 185-210).
Silliman, B. R., Schrack, E., He, Q., Cope, R., Santoni, A., van der Heide, T.,
…vandeKoppel,J.(2015).Facilitationshiftsparadigmsandcanam-
plify coastal restoration efforts. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science s of the United States of America, 112(46), 14295–14300.
https://doi.org /10.1073/pnas.1515297112
Smith, J. (2013). The role of Phragmites australis in mediating inland salt
marsh migration in a mid- Atlantic estuary. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e65091.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065091
Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, K ., & Bamford, H. (2015). Future of our
coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to en-
hance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and
ecosystems. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 137–148. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006
Temmerman, S., Govers, G., Wartel, S., & Meire, P. (2004). Modelling
estuarine variations in tidal marsh sedimentation: Response
to changing sea level and suspended sediment concentra-
tions. Marine Geology, 212(1–4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
margeo.2004.10.021
Toft, J. D., Bilkovic, D. M., Mitchell, M. M., & La Peyre, M. K. (2017).
A synthesis of living shoreline perspectives. In D. M. Bilkovic,
M. M. Mitchell, M. K. La Peyre, & J. D. Toft (Eds.), Living shore-
lines: The science and management of nature-based coastal pro-
tection(pp.481–486).BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.https://doi.
org/10.1201/9781315151465
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(3), 1461–1480.
https://doi.org /10.1007/s11069-013-0612-3
Vandenbruwaene, W., Maris, T., Cox, T. J. S., Cahoon, D. R., Meire, P., &
Temmerman, S. (2011). Sedimentation and response to sea- level rise
of a restored marsh with reduced tidal exchange: Comparison with
a natural tidal marsh. Geomorphology, 130 (3), 115–126. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.03.004
Whitman, E. R., & Reidenbach, M. A. (2012). Benthic flow environments
affect recruitment of Crassostrea virginica larvae to an intertidal oys-
ter reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 463, 117–19 1.
How to cite this article: Mitchell M, Bilkovic DM. Embracing
dynamic design for climate- resilient living shorelines. J Appl
Ecol. 2019;56:1099–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.13371