This spring, the ICES Journal of Marine Science published a review, headed by Steven Degraer of the Institute of Natural Sciences, regarding the use of nature-inclusive design to enhance the ecological value of infrastructure at sea. Although such innovative solutions are generally viewed positively, the paper highlights the need for more concrete goals and monitoring targets for projects to deliver on their promises.
Nature-inclusive design (NID) generally refers to the incorporation of ecological features or the creation of additional habitat around marine infrastructure. In the review “Rethinking the responsible application of nature-inclusive design in marine infrastructure to restore ecosystems and enhance biodiversity”, the authors highlight that the term is currently unspecific, encompassing a wide range of strategies and approaches. They propose a framework that divides the umbrella term of “nature-inclusive design” into three categories: restorative NID, creative NID through optimized infrastructure, and creative NID through add-on structures.
“We propose to make a distinction between NID that will contribute to restoring lost ecological values (i.e. restorative NID) and NID that will promote or boost ecological values beyond what the local environment may naturally offer (i.e. creative NID),” said Steven Degraer of the Institute of Natural Sciences.
One of the central concerns raised in the paper is that creative NID walks a tentative line between optimization and replacement. While NID through optimized infrastructure remains centered within the footprint of the site (for example, the foundation pile of a wind turbine), NID through add-on structures goes beyond – creating additional habitat spaces in the vicinity of the structure. A cited example in the paper is the creation of artificial reefs between turbines in a Dutch wind farm. Adding the artificial habitat in this case was not emulating the conditions that predated the wind farm but instead replaced the naturally occurring habitat with one that would boost species richness.
The review warns that increasing the number of species present does not necessarily add ecological value to a site nor does it indicate overall site health. Therefore, the priority should be shifted away from structural indicators of biodiversity (like species richness, density, or biomass) toward encouraging ecological function, such as shelter, nursery or spawning habitat, or nutrient cycling. They caution that these endeavours require clearly defined goals and continual evaluation, ideally following SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) principles. Without clear objectives and evidence of ecological benefits, NID can fail to deliver the desired positive outcome.
“By deepening our understanding of marine ecosystems and applying this knowledge to infrastructure design, NID can help us live more harmoniously with nature, benefiting both biodiversity and human needs,” Steven adds.
Overall, the review regards NID as a promising approach but emphasises the need for caution. The use of NID presents an opportunity to restore lost ecological values as well as to offset the potential for negative impacts in marine infrastructure. However, with this potential there is a need to ensure its ecological benefits are substantial, well-evidenced, and lasting.
Header image: ©Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Louisiana State University (CC 2.0).