Reversing a tyranny of cascading shoreline‐protection decisions driving coastal habitat loss

Quantifying the impacts of future shoreline modification on biodiversity in a case study of coastal Georgia, United States

People often modify the shoreline to mitigate erosion and protect property from storm impacts. The 2 main approaches to modification are gray infrastructure (e.g., bulkheads and seawalls) and natural or green infrastructure (NI) (e.g., living shorelines). Gray infrastructure is still more often used for coastal protection than NI, despite having more detrimental effects on ecosystem parameters, such as biodiversity. We assessed the impact of gray infrastructure on biodiversity and whether the adoption of NI can mitigate its loss. We examined the literature to quantify the relationship of gray infrastructure and NI to biodiversity and developed a model with temporal geospatial data on ecosystem distribution and shoreline modification to project future shoreline modification for our study location, coastal Georgia (United States). We applied the literature-derived empirical relationships of infrastructure effects on biodiversity to the shoreline modification projections to predict change in biodiversity under different NI versus gray infrastructure scenarios. For our study area, which is dominated by marshes and use of gray infrastructure, when just under half of all new coastal infrastructure was to be NI, previous losses of biodiversity from gray infrastructure could be mitigated by 2100 (net change of biodiversity of +0.14%, 95% confidence interval -0.10% to +0.39%). As biodiversity continues to decline from human impacts, it is increasingly imperative to minimize negative impacts when possible. We therefore suggest policy and the permitting process be changed to promote the adoption of NI.