Balancing the Need to Develop Coastal Areas with the Desire for an Ecologically Functioning Coastal Environment: Is Net Ecosystem Improvement Possible?
Abstract
The global human population is growing exponentially, close to a majority lives and works near the coast, and coastal commerce and development are critical to the economies of many nations. Hence, coastal areas will continue to be a major focus of development and economic activity. People desire the economic advantages provided by coastal development along with the fisheries and social commodities supported by estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Because of these facts, we view the challenge of balancing coastal development with enhancing nearshore marine and estuarine ecosystems (i.e., net ecosystem improvement) as the top priority for coastal researchers in this century. Our restoration research in Pacific Northwest estuaries and participation in nearshore project design and impact mitigation has largely dealt with these competing goals. To this end, we have applied conceptual models, comprehensive assessment methods, and principles of restoration ecology, conservation biology, and adaptive management to incorporate science into decisions about uses of estuarine systems. Case studies of Bainbridge Island and the Columbia River demonstrate the use of objective, defensible methods to prioritize tidally influenced shorelines and habitats (i.e., riparian forests, marshes, unvegetated flats, rocky shores, seagrass meadows, kelp forests) for preservation, conservation, and restoration. Case studies of Clinton, Washington, and Port Townsend, Washington, demonstrate the incorporation…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The CNEI model sums incremental increases in ecosystem function from restoration actions.
“The CNEI model sums incremental increases in ecosystem function from restoration actions (Thom et al. 2005).”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Thom et al. 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration
Diefenderfer, H. L., Johnson, G. E., Thom, R. M., Buenau, K. E., Weitkamp, L. A., Woodley, C. M., Borde, A. B., & Kropp, R. K. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1242 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Thom, R. M., Williams, G. W., & Diefenderfer, H. L.
- Affiliations
- Battelle (US)
- Corresponding author
- Thom, R.M.
- Venue
- Restoration Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 193-203
- ISSN
- 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-100X
- OpenAlex
- W2026854808
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 14.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Restoration Ecology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Conservation and Management
- Keywords
- coastal development, estuarine restoration, nearshore ecosystems, adaptive management, habitat prioritization, riparian forest, marshes, seagrass meadows, kelp forests, impact mitigation, no net loss, Bainbridge Island, Columbia River, Pacific Northwest estuaries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review