Next Article in Journal
Economic Feasibility and Water Footprint Analysis for Smart Irrigation Systems in Palm Oil Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Spillover Effect of Different Types of Technological Innovation on New Energy Industry: Taking China’s Solar Photovoltaic as an Example
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Systematic Review

Land–Sea Interactions and Ecosystem Services: Research Gaps and Future Challenges

Matías Barceló
Cristian A. Vargas
1,3 and
Stefan Gelcich
Instituto Milenio en Socio-Ecología Costera (SECOS), Santiago 8320000, Chile
Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Department of Ecology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 114-D, Santiago 8331150, Chile
Coastal Ecosystems & Global Environmental Change Lab (ECCALab), Department of Aquatic Systems, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4030000, Chile
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8068;
Submission received: 11 April 2023 / Revised: 10 May 2023 / Accepted: 12 May 2023 / Published: 16 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability)


The land–sea interface is essential for understanding the interconnectedness of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and provides ecosystem services to people. Although research has been conducted on both ecosystems, knowledge about their interactions remains limited. While there has been growing research interest on land–sea interactions over the last decade, other types of knowledge system such as local or indigenous knowledge have not yet been included. The goal of this study is to review the literature related to land–sea interactions using an ecosystem services framework to help classify existing research. A systematic review of the literature was employed by searching peer-reviewed publications in Web of Science using land–sea interaction keywords. The synthesis identified 166 publications. The findings indicate that the primary disciplines that have investigated land–sea interactions were biogeochemistry and ecology, with a focus on nutrients and interactions. In terms of ecosystem services, supporting and regulating services were the most researched, with urbanization and agricultural and forestry effluents as main studied drivers. Results reveal a need for a more comprehensive view of land–sea interactions that recognizes the critical role that social factors play in shaping the sustainability of these systems. Therefore, a future challenge involves using a more holistic approach to the study and management of land–sea interactions.

1. Introduction

The land–sea interface is a crucial area for understanding the interconnectedness of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and recognizing the different processes and scales of land–sea interactions is essential for identifying and solving problems that affect ecosystem services provided by both ecosystems. Terrestrial and marine ecosystems provide different benefits to people through ecosystem services, such as food provision, coastal protection, climate regulation, and cultural experiences. Both ecosystems have been well studied from many perspectives [1]. However, these ecosystems are not independent, and information about their interactions is still scarce [2,3]. Indeed, coastal margins are characterized by an intense bidirectional connectivity between terrestrial and marine environments, and therefore land–sea interactions are key for understanding processes occurring at this interface. Ecosystem services provided by land or sea may be affected by different drivers which may have negative consequences for local communities living on these coastal margins. Conservation and management on marine ecosystems may not be effective if the effect of land on sea is ignored. Hence, it is necessary to identify those processes that connect the land–sea interface. These interactions can be ecological, through interaction of species; social, by management of resources and decision-making; and biophysical or biogeochemical, by movement of matter, and these processes can act synergistically [4,5]. Recognizing the different processes and scales of land–sea interactions will be relevant to identifying problems that will allow us to think of integrative solutions.
Rivers are recognized as a main source of freshwater to coastal ocean. This influences the physical environments through its effects on buoyancy-driven circulation and stratification, but also its biogeochemical cycles through the transport of significant amounts of nutrients and organic matter from land-based activities such as agricultural, forestry, and urban effluents [6,7]. The riverine flux of inorganic macronutrients (NO3, PO43−, Si(OH)4) known to limit primary production in the coastal zones might be also variable, and needs to be considered in the context of a coastal system that already has seasonally high nutrient concentrations from coastal upwelling [8,9,10]. Nevertheless, the transport of riverine sediments can also play a significant role in coastal circulation, influencing cross- and along-shelf currents, and driven small-to-mesoscale oceanographic features, such as upwelling, eddies, and fronts [11,12]. Rivers can also have negative effects on the sea by carrying pollution and disease propagules that may modify communities of species [13,14]. Land-based activities may eventually affect coastal communities whose livelihoods depend on marine resources. However, not only these communities will be affected, but all communities living at the land–sea interface. Since both terrestrial and marine systems may have food interdependencies, the livelihoods of the entire community may be susceptible to change [15]. Therefore, although land–sea interactions may be driven by biophysical, biogeochemical, or ecological processes, these processes are embedded in a social–ecological system. Coastal communities are in the presence of threats related to land–sea interactions. As land–sea interactions may negatively affect the livelihood of communities, a first step to avoid or overcome these cross-system threats is understanding what the role of the social–ecological approach in land–sea interactions is.
In land–sea interactions, different knowledge systems present in coastal communities may play a key role in obtaining information. Interdisciplinary science and knowledge systems are recognized as an important aspect to respond to and anticipate changes [16]. For example, in the presence of climatic threats, local knowledge may contribute to food security of communities converting the agri-food system into a sustainable food system [17]. To address information gaps in land–sea interactions and their relationship with ecosystem services, it is important to address disciplinary backgrounds and the inclusion of different knowledge systems. Thus, identifying multiple sources of knowledge in a complex system such as the land–sea interface is fundamental to understand and further improve livelihoods and sustainability.
Ecosystem services refer to the processes and conditions provided by natural ecosystems that contribute to the sustenance and improvement of human well-being [18]. The adoption of ecosystem services approaches can aid the effective implementation of conservation policies and management practices [19]. Therefore, the goal of this study is to review the literature related to ecological, social, biogeochemical, and biophysical approaches to study land–sea interactions in its relationship with ecosystem services, specifically those that contain information useful for management. Accordingly, our objectives are (1) to assess the information about land–sea interactions and its relationship with ecosystem services; (2) to assess the relationship between land–sea interactions and human well-being; (3) to examine the contribution of different disciplines to land–sea interactions; and (4) to assess the contribution of different sources of knowledge, including local and traditional, to land–sea interactions. We analyze these aspects to identify current biases and research gaps related to research on land–sea interactions.

2. Methods

We employed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement as a guideline [20] to reach the objectives of research. We searched all peer reviewed publications from 1975 to April of 2020 in Web of Science using the following keywords that were related to land–sea interactions: land sea; land-sea; ocean-land; ocean land; coastal ecotone; terrestrial and marine; coastal ecosystem; sea land; sea-land; marine and terrestrial; land ocean; land-ocean. Each term was combined (AND) with “interaction*”. The search returned 1333 publications. Additionally, we combined the above search with terms associated with local, indigenous, and traditional knowledge. This research returned 2 publications that were included in the previous search. A decision tree using different criteria was used to select articles, based on the Prisma flow diagram [21]. The first criteria were to exclude reviews, books, book chapters, and opinion articles, as well as articles that were not written in English, before the screening. After that, we employed a screening using titles and abstracts to exclude papers outside the main goal of examining land–sea interactions associated with ecological, social, and biophysical processes. Finally, we obtained a total of 166 publications by using our criteria of selection according to the PRISMA statement (Figure 1). The PRISMA Checklist for this systematic literature review is available in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1).
We further analyzed full texts of publications to classify the 166 publications, using two approaches, one was related to the following categories: (1) publication year, (2) the country where the study was conducted, (3) main discipline of research, (4) the focus of research, defined according to the objectives of the study, (5) if the study analyzed a management problem and its recommendations, (6) kind of management approach, and (7) if the study included social participation whether from local community, bureaucratic, scientific, or private (Table 1).
The second approach of classification was related with ecosystem services framework [18]: (1) direct drivers of change, (2) indirect drivers of change, (3) type of ecosystem services, and (4) human well-being (Table 2). Drivers of land–sea interactions were categorized following Alvarez-Romero et al.’s (2011) classification [2]. To avoid bias, classification and reports of systematic review were made for one reviewer and subsequently checked by another reviewer. Data analysis and figures were prepared in R Core Team [22].

3. Results

3.1. Location of Study and Years of Publication

We identified 166 publications (Table S2, Supplementary Material) according to our objectives. Studies were heterogeneously distributed in 59 different countries. China was the country with the most articles (n = 28), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 23), USA (n = 16), Spain (n = 8), and Australia, Brazil, France, and Italy with 6 articles published each; most countries had 5 or fewer publications (Figure 2a). Articles from the management discipline numbered only 24 publications, distributed in 22 different countries where China and Bangladesh had 2 publications each, showing a homogenous distribution of articles over the world (Figure 2b). The year of publications of land–sea interactions, based in our criteria of research, began in 1997 with the studies of Naudin et al. [23] and Wass et al. [24], maintaining a similar rate of publications until 2019, where articles reached a peak with publications from diverse disciplines (e.g., [25,26,27,28]) (Figure 2). Despite the increasing number of articles in recent years, we observed in general a low number of articles on this topic.

3.2. Discipline and Focus of Research

Investigation of land–sea interactions were initially dominated by fields of biogeochemistry (69 articles published) and ecology (50 articles published), accounting for 71.6% of the total of articles. Particularly, when articles of land–sea interactions began to be published in 1997, most of them were in the United Kingdom in disciplines of biogeochemistry with focus on nutrients and sediment fluxes (e.g., [24,29,30,31]). On the other hand, management research represents 12% of studies with 20 articles, which began in 2010 (Figure 3; e.g., [32,33]). Other disciplines such as geochemistry, oceanography, microbiology, and geography represent the other 16.4%, with 13, 8, 4, and 2 articles, respectively. Focus of the research was mainly on nutrients (n = 42), sediment flux (n = 18), and trophic interactions (n = 17) which represents 46.3% of all articles (Figure 3). Some studies with the same focus of research were approached from different disciplines. For instance, focus on sediment flux research was approached from disciplines such as biogeochemistry, ecology, and geochemistry (see [34]). More than half of these categories have five or fewer publications for each focus of research.

3.3. Ecosystem Services

The main publications on ecosystem services have consistently addressed Supporting ESs, where we found 99 out of 166 studies, which is 59.6% of the total number of publications (Figure 4). For example, Quirós et al. [35] showed how human activities on land interact with marine ecosystems and seagrass conditions, negatively affecting support services. Other studies, such as the one proposed by Yang and Ge [36] showed how vegetation cover (using a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) approach) changed over time due to land-based activities. Studies addressing Regulating ESs numbered 40 out of 166, accounting for 24.1% of total studies. In relation to this, the studies are focused on water quality and the nutrient and carbon cycles [37,38], and their relationship with climate regulation [39], among others. For example, Barbosa et al. [40] showed that the area of forest patch influences the acquisition of water inputs coming from marine ecosystems, revealing an interaction coming from sea to land. Concerning the case of Provisioning ecosystem services, we found 20 out of 166 publications. As an example, van Holt et al. [14] studied how exotic forestry plantations affected harvesting behavior of fishermen by reducing the abundance of benthic species. Other studies addressed how interaction from land to sea by rivers, submarine groundwater discharges, and human activities can impact provisioning services as fisheries, marine, and aquaculture [41,42,43]. Finally, with only 4 publications, 2.4% of studies addressed Cultural ESs being the least represented in publications of land–sea interactions. From the few cases of Cultural ESs, Printsmann and Pikner [44] conducted semi-structured and focus group interviews of stakeholders to assess self-organization of communities and cultural sustainability of coastal landscapes. Other studies addressing cultural ecosystem services are also addressing other services as supporting, regulating, and provisioning (e.g., [45,46,47]). For example, Matsuda and Kokubu [46] introduced the concept of Satoumi, which aims to improve sustainable management of the costal ecosystem by the local community. In this case, Satuomi activities improved water exchange across dikes to restore tidal flats. As well as the latter case, many studies (e.g., [48,49]) addressed up to three different ecosystem services.

3.4. Drivers of Change

Urbanization, agricultural, and forestry effluents are the principal direct drivers affecting different ecosystem services (Figure 5a). Urbanization as a process has impacted water quality due the high load of nutrients coming from urbanized areas (e.g., [25]), as well as habitat loss (e.g., [50]) and food webs in marine and terrestrial animals (e.g., [51]). Agricultural and forestry effluents can modify benthic assembly of species as we have seen in the study of van Holt et al. [14]. Additionally, as is shown by Cabral and Fonseca [25], agriculture and effluents of land-use change are boosting process of eutrophication. Other drivers identified were as follows: Firstly, climate change, where Luczak et al. [52] reported how the increase in sea temperature induced changes in the food webs in the North Sea. Feng et al. [53] showed that invasive species such as a cordgrass modify the diet of benthic macrofauna, but this can be reversed using native species for restoration. Marine and freshwater aquaculture of shrimps has ecological and socio-economic impacts on coastal degradation [33]. Sea-level rise is increasing the losses of sand dunes and beaches and contributing to coastal erosion [54]. Finally, urban wastewater, where Fernández et al. [55] found a high contribution of sewage-derived nutrients in an important river for shellfish production.
For indirect drivers, only 12 publications addressed drivers. Socio-political and socio-economic changes are the drivers that have been most investigated (Figure 5b). Pittman and Armitage [56] examined how socio-political drivers as network governance across land–sea interfaces may help to improve management of natural resources between these two ecosystems. On the other hand, socio-economic attributes were assessed by Peterson et al. [28] to predict hard armoring of the shoreline in response to sea-level rise.

3.5. Human Well-Being

Human well-being has been poorly addressed in the context of land–sea interactions. Only 19 publications out of 166 include some aspect of human well-being. While the different categories of human well-being have been addressed similarly under the different ecosystem services (Figure 6), the category of basic materials for a good life is the most addressed aspect with 60% of publications. In this category, we found publications addressing how the effect on water supply [49] and food [57] could be affecting the well-being of people. In contrast, security and good social relations are poorly addressed with 11.6% and 7% of total publications, respectively. We found that research addressing security of human well-being is related to efforts to protect livelihoods of communities from natural disaster [58], meanwhile for good social relations, research is related to involving local communities to cooperate in activities for tidal flat restoration [46].

3.6. Social–Ecological Perspective

From 166 publications, only 42 identified a management problem and gave management recommendations. However, only 10 publications presented management approaches in the context of land–sea interactions (Figure 7). For integrated management, for example, Anton et al. [59] aimed to apply a management model analyzing social and economic factors in the North Atlantic Ocean. Leenhardt et al. [45] in their research, mentioned that coral reef systems should consider spatial planning with an ecosystem-based management approach. Land–sea conservation planning was not addressed. However, Batista et al. [60] and Cabral et al. [61] used an ecosystem-based and integrated management approach, and their works addressed land-use or marine spatial planning, considering the interaction between land and sea as the management approach.
In terms of social participation, only 11 publications included social actors in the research. Knowledge systems were represented by local communities (n = 7), bureaucratic knowledge (n = 8), scientific knowledge (n = 5), and knowledge from the private sector (n = 1) (Figure 8). Many of these publications included more than one type of social actor. For instance, Leenhardt et al. [45] in the study of social–ecological dynamics of coral reefs, included participants from the local community, researchers from other fields, and people from governmental and institutes agencies. Văidianu et al. [62] used semi-structured interviews with the national government, academia, and private sector to explore the current status of coastal zones and marine management in Romania. Only one publication used one knowledge system from local communities (see Kramer et al. [57]), where researchers used surveys of different households to understand livelihood transitions.

4. Discussion

Our results showed that land–sea interactions are a novel area of study that have been accumulating new investigations during recent years. The main disciplines that have been researching the land–sea interaction were biogeochemistry and ecology with a principal focus on the study of nutrients. This seems to be linked to international initiatives such as the “Land-Ocean Interaction Study (LOIS)” and “Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ)” [63]. These initiatives were centered in the United Kingdom. The main objectives of these projects were to study nutrient flux and sediments in rivers associated with the cities, industry, and agriculture [64]. This explains the great number of articles on biogeochemistry in general, and especially in the United Kingdom (Figure 2a). China, another industrialized country, was another country with a high number of publications, and also focused on biogeochemistry due the high number of industries [65]. An aspect related to this is the source and direction of interaction. Given that the research on nutrient flux, pollutants and sediments try to understand the effects of human activity on rivers and biogeochemical cycles is why the principal source of interaction are rivers, and the main direction of interaction is from land to sea.
Research of land–sea interactions focused on management is relatively new. The first article was released in 2007, and publications in this field have increased since 2014 (Figure 3). Research of governance in this interface also began in 2007 [66]. However, most publications do not address management approaches. Management approaches are basically focused on ecosystem-based management and integrated management [2]. Despite a new approach where land–sea conservation planning explicitly incorporates the interaction between both ecosystems, we did not find this approach in our review. Land–sea conservation planning maximizes the benefits and reduces the costs of conservation, including different knowledge systems and actors [2], which is necessary to improve the decision making in this interface. Further research should make some efforts to include this novel approach.
When categorizing all publications within an ecosystem services framework, results show that research of land–sea interactions is focused mainly on supporting and regulating ecosystem services, which may be contradictory with other studies in coastal communities where provisioning and cultural services are the main ecosystem services studied [19,67]. In fact, coastal people indicate provisioning services as the most important for their livelihood, they also recognize provisioning as a contribution to cultural values [68]. The main studied drivers of change include agricultural and forestry effluents and urbanization. Although our results showed that urbanization or agricultural and forestry effluents affect services that may modify livelihoods of people, most of the investigations do not address or mention these aspects of human well-being (Figure 6), which is a necessary aspect to contribute to future research. Considering that most of the population lives in coastal zones [69], connecting land–sea research with human well-being is necessary to improve the likelihood of communities living in this interface.
This connection would be possible from social–ecological research. Our results showed a low social participation of different actors. However, publications included more than one actor in the research. Our review identified knowledge systems from the private sector, local communities, scientific research, and public institutions, demonstrating a diverse range of contributions from various systems. However, knowledge systems such as local and indigenous knowledge are seldom present in the research of land–sea interactions. This has also been reported at country scales; for instance, an extensive review of traditional and local knowledge in Chile only found information about terrestrial or marine management, but not about its interaction [70]. The integration of diverse sources of knowledge can contribute to improving better management practices, especially in a context of lack of information about land–sea interactions. Connecting knowledge systems can help to mobilize researchers, fill gaps, and support new strategies to enhance social–ecological systems, and achieve more effective outcomes for the land–sea interface.

4.1. Limitations of the Study

The research we have conducted is aligned with the prevailing trends that identify the significant threats to marine ecosystems posed by human activities, including urbanization, and the discharge of agricultural and forestry effluents. However, we acknowledge that the association of the term “land–sea interaction” and its derivatives, as well as our exclusion of non–English studies, may not be fully comprehensive in representing all of the drivers of change affecting these ecosystems. While this may potentially result in some biases, general conclusions which comply with search criteria will be maintained. Results show that food webs and ecological subsidies linking terrestrial and marine ecosystems have been exhaustively studied since the 1970s [71,72,73]. In this context, migratory fish have been shown to represent links between land and sea, or vice versa. These fish move across different bodies of water, generating a flow of nutrients that contribute to the food webs and ecosystem services in oceans, rivers, and lakes [74,75]. For example, when salmon migrate and die, their carcasses are incorporated into upstream food webs, enriching them with nutrients [76]. Similarly, research on the impact of dams on the biogeochemistry, sedimentation, coastal zones, and food webs of marine ecosystems has been ongoing for decades [77,78,79,80]. Nevertheless, we found only four papers related to damming that were included in the list of drivers of urbanization and agricultural and forestry effluents. Furthermore, current research has identified the emergence of novel entities such as emergent pollutants and microplastics, which are exceeding new planetary boundaries [81,82]. Unfortunately, these emerging threats have not been found from our search and review. Hence, caution should be taken in interpreting our results. Although the term “land-sea interaction” is relatively new, it is noteworthy that previous research on this topic has been conducted without explicitly using this terminology. Therefore, our findings offer valuable insights into the primary trends and gaps in current research on land–sea interactions.

4.2. Future Challenges

While our results present an approximation of the research on land–sea interactions, a challenge remains to extend this research to include all the limitations we have encountered in our study. Despite the significant progress made in biogeochemical and ecological studies, our synthesis has revealed a critical gap in our understanding of these interactions. This bias highlights the urgent need to conduct research that encompasses a more comprehensive view of social–ecological land–sea interactions, which involves incorporating social participation and other knowledge systems. It is crucial that future research endeavors to prioritize the integration of diverse knowledge systems and foster co-creation of new knowledge. This approach would facilitate the explicit connection between ecosystems and human well-being, ultimately leading to improved livelihoods for people. One potential avenue for achieving this goal is through the inclusion of this explicit relationship in land–sea conservation planning. Our systematic review highlights the challenge for a more holistic approach to the study and management of land–sea interactions, one that recognizes the critical role that social factors play in shaping the sustainability of these systems. By prioritizing the integration of diverse knowledge systems and promoting co-creation of new knowledge, we can improve our understanding of these interactions and develop more effective conservation strategies that benefit both people and the environment.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at, Table S1: PRISMA checklist; Table S2: List of publications analyzed in the review.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B. and S.G.; methodology, M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.B., C.A.V. and S.G.; funding acquisition, C.A.V. and S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by ANID PIA/Basal FB0002, Millennium Science Initiative Program—ICN 2019_015 and FONDECYT 1230982 (S.G.) and 1210171 (C.A.V.). M.B. was supported by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID), Scholarship Program, Doctorado Nacional, 2019-21190515.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Webb, T.J. Marine and Terrestrial Ecology: Unifying Concepts, Revealing Differences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Álvarez-Romero, J.G.; Pressey, R.L.; Ban, N.C.; Vance-Borland, K.; Willer, C.; Klein, C.J.; Gaines, S.D. Integrated Land-Sea Conservation Planning: The Missing Links. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 42, 381–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stoms, D.M.; Davis, F.W.; Andelman, S.J.; Carr, M.H.; Gaines, S.D.; Halpern, B.S.; Hoenicke, R.; Leibowitz, S.G.; Leydecker, A.; Madin, E.M.P.; et al. Integrated Coastal Reserve Planning: Making the Land—Sea Connection in a Nutshell. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Beger, M.; Grantham, H.S.; Pressey, R.L.; Wilson, K.A.; Peterson, E.L.; Dorfman, D.; Mumby, P.J.; Lourival, R.; Brumbaugh, D.R.; Possingham, H.P. Conservation Planning for Connectivity across Marine, Freshwater, and Terrestrial Realms. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fang, X.; Hou, X.; Li, X.; Hou, W.; Nakaoka, M.; Yu, X. Ecological Connectivity between Land and Sea: A Review. Ecol. Res. 2018, 33, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boyer, E.W.; Howarth, R.W.; Galloway, J.N.; Dentener, F.J.; Green, P.A.; Vörösmarty, C.J. Riverine Nitrogen Export from the Continents to the Coasts. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2006, 20, GB1S91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bianchi, T.S. The Role of Terrestrially Derived Organic Carbon in the Coastal Ocean: A Changing Paradigm and the Priming Effect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 19473–19481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tremblay, J.E.; Raimbault, P.; Garcia, N.; Lansard, B.; Babin, M.; Gagnon, J. Impact of River Discharge, Upwelling and Vertical Mixing on the Nutrient Loading and Productivity of the Canadian Beaufort Shelf. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 4853–4868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vargas, C.A.; Contreras, P.Y.; Pérez, C.A.; Sobarzo, M.; Saldías, G.S.; Salisbury, J. Influences of Riverine and Upwelling Waters on the Coastal Carbonate System off Central Chile and Their Ocean Acidification Implications. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2016, 121, 1468–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Masotti, I.; Aparicio-Rizzo, P.; Yevenes, M.A.; Garreaud, R.; Belmar, L.; Farías, L. The Influence of River Discharge on Nutrient Export and Phytoplankton Biomass off the Central Chile Coast (33°–37°S): Seasonal Cycle and Interannual Variability. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Szczuciński, W.; Jagodziński, R.; Hanebuth, T.J.J.; Stattegger, K.; Wetzel, A.; Mitrega, M.; Unverricht, D.; Van Phach, P. Modern Sedimentation and Sediment Dispersal Pattern on the Continental Shelf off the Mekong River Delta, South China Sea. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2013, 110, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fagherazzi, S.; Edmonds, D.A.; Nardin, W.; Leonardi, N.; Canestrelli, A.; Falcini, F.; Jerolmack, D.J.; Mariotti, G.; Rowland, J.C.; Slingerland, R.L. Dynamics of River Mouth Deposits. Rev. Geophys. 2015, 53, 642–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tallis, H.; Ferdaña, Z.; Gray, E. Linking Terrestrial and Marine Conservation Planning and Threats Analysis. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Van Holt, T.; Crona, B.; Johnson, J.C.; Gelcich, S. The Consequences of Landscape Change on Fishing Strategies. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 579, 930–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cottrell, R.S.; Fleming, A.; Fulton, E.A.; Nash, K.L.; Watson, R.A.; Blanchard, J.L. Considering Land–Sea Interactions and Trade-Offs for Food and Biodiversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 580–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nyong, A.; Adesina, F.; Osman Elasha, B. The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2007, 12, 787–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lara, L.G.; Pereira, L.M.; Ravera, F.; Jiménez-Aceituno, A. Flipping the Tortilla: Social-Ecological Innovations and Traditional Ecological Knowledge for More Sustainable Agri-Food Systems in Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  19. Blythe, J.; Armitage, D.; Alonso, G.; Campbell, D.; Esteves Dias, A.C.; Epstein, G.; Marschke, M.; Nayak, P. Frontiers in Coastal Well-Being and Ecosystem Services Research: A Systematic Review. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2020, 185, 105028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R Package and Shiny App for Producing PRISMA 2020-compliant Flow Diagrams, with Interactivity for Optimised Digital Transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Naudin, J.J.; Cauwet, G.; Chrétiennot-Dinet, M.J.; Deniaux, B.; Devenon, J.L.; Pauc, H. River Discharge and Wind Influence upon Particulate Transfer at the Land-Ocean Interaction: Case Study of the Rhone River Plume. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1997, 45, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wass, P.D.; Marks, S.D.; Finch, J.W.; Leeks, G.J.L.; Ingram, J.K. Monitoring and preliminary interpretation of in-river turbidity and remote sensed imagery for suspended sediment transport studies in the humber catchment. Sci. Total. Environ. 1997, 194–195, 263–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cabral, A.; Fonseca, A. Coupled Effects of Anthropogenic Nutrient Sources and Meteo-Oceanographic Events in the Trophic State of a Subtropical Estuarine System. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2019, 225, 106228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chang, N.B.; Wei, X.; Mostafiz, C.; Yang, Y.J.; Weiss, J.; Belavel, M. Reconstruction of Sea-Land Interactions between Terrestrial Vegetation Cover and Water Quality Constituents in the Mattapoisett Harbor Area during the 1991 Hurricane Bob Event. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 83, 101929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, A.; Wang, K.; Chen, M.T.; Khokiattiwong, S.; Kornkanitnan, N.; Shi, X. Distribution of Rare Earth Elements in Surface Sediments of the Western Gulf of Thailand: Constraints from Sedimentology and Mineralogy. Quat. Int. 2019, 527, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Peterson, N.E.; Landry, C.E.; Alexander, C.R.; Samples, K.; Bledsoe, B.P. Socioeconomic and Environmental Predictors of Estuarine Shoreline Hard Armoring. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Uncles, R.J.; Stephens, J.A. Suspended Sediment Fluxes in the Tidal Ouse, UK. Hydrol. Process. 1999, 13, 1167–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Uncles, R.J.; Easton, A.E.; Griffiths, M.L.; Harris, C.; Howland, R.J.M.; King, R.S.; Morris, A.W.; Plummer, D.H. Seasonality of the Turbidity Maximum in the Humber-Ouse Estuary, UK. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1998, 37, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Uncles, R.J.; Howland, R.J.M.; Easton, A.E.; Griffiths, M.L.; Harris, C.; King, R.S.; Morris, A.W.; Plummer, D.H.; Woodward, E.M.S. Seasonal Variability of Dissolved Nutrients in the Humber-Ouse Estuary, UK. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1999, 37, 234–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cantasano, N.; Pellicone, G. Marine and River Environments: A Pattern of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Calabria (Southern Italy). Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2014, 89, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sohel, M.S.I.; Ullah, M.H. Ecohydrology: A Framework for Overcoming the Environmental Impacts of Shrimp Aquaculture on the Coastal Zone of Bangladesh. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2012, 63, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yan, S.; Zhai, L.; Deng, Q.; Pan, D.; Gao, S.; Zou, C. Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Soil Chloride Distribution in a Coastal Saline Plain: Implication for Ocean and Climate Influences. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 586–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Quiros, T.E.A.L.; Croll, D.; Tershy, B.; Fortes, M.D.; Raimondi, P. Land Use Is a Better Predictor of Tropical Seagrass Condition than Marine Protection. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 209, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yang, Z.; Ge, Y.U. Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Vegetation Index and Its Infl Uencing Factors—A Case Study of the Jiaozhou Bay, China. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2017, 35, 1398–1408. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin, J.; Zhu, Q.; Hong, Y.; Yuan, L.; Liu, J.; Xu, X.; Wang, J. Synchronous Response of Sedimentary Organic Carbon Accumulation on the Inner Shelf of the East China Sea to the Water Impoundment of Three Gorges and Gezhouba Dams. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2018, 36, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xi, M.; Kong, F.; Li, Y.; Kong, F. Temporal-Spatial Variation of DOC Concentration, UV Absorbance and the Flux Estimation in the Lower Dagu River, China. Front. Earth Sci. 2017, 11, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smeaton, C.; Austin, W.E.N. Sources, Sinks, and Subsidies: Terrestrial Carbon Storage in Mid-Latitude Fjords. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2017, 122, 2754–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barbosa, O.; Marquet, P.A.; Bacigalupe, L.D.; Christie, D.A.; del-Val, E.; Gutierrez, A.G.; Jones, C.G.; Weathers, K.C.; Armesto, J.J. Interactions among Patch Area, Forest Structure and Water Fluxes in a Fog-Inundated Forest Ecosystem in Semi-Arid Chile. Funct. Ecol. 2010, 24, 909–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gamito, R.; Vinagre, C.; Teixeira, C.M.; Costa, M.J.; Cabral, H.N. Are Portuguese Coastal Fisheries Affected by River Drainage? Aquat. Living Resour. 2016, 29, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, A. Impact of Human Activities on Depositional Process of Tidal Flat in Quanzhou Bay of China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2007, 17, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, X.; Du, J.; Ji, T.; Wen, T.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J. An Estimation of Nutrient Fluxes via Submarine Groundwater Discharge into the Sanggou Bay—A Typical Multi-Species Culture Ecosystem in China. Mar. Chem. 2014, 167, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Printsmann, A.; Pikner, T. The Role of Culture in the Self-Organisation of Coastal Fishers Sustaining Coastal Landscapes: A Case Study in Estonia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Leenhardt, P.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Pascal, N.; Probst, W.N.; Aubanel, A.; Bambridge, T.; Charles, M.; Clua, E.; Féral, F.; Quinquis, B.; et al. Exploring Social-Ecological Dynamics of a Coral Reef Resource System Using Participatory Modeling and Empirical Data. Mar. Policy 2017, 78, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Matsuda, O.; Kokubu, H. Recent Coastal Environmental Management Based on New Concept of Satoumi Which Promotes Land-Ocean Interaction: A Case Study in Japan. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 183, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stanchev, H.; Stancheva, M.; Young, R.; Palazov, A. Analysis of Shoreline Changes and Cliff Retreat to Support Marine Spatial Planning in Shabla Municipality, Northeast Bulgaria. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2018, 156, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sung, K.; Jeong, H.; Sangwan, N.; Yu, D.J. Effects of Flood Control Strategies on Flood Resilience Under Sociohydrological Disturbances. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 2661–2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xu, X.; Chen, Z.; Feng, Z. From Natural Driving to Artificial Intervention: Changes of the Yellow River Estuary and Delta Development. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2019, 174, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Coverdale, T.C.; Herrmann, N.C.; Altieri, A.H.; Bertness, M.D. Latent Impacts: The Role of Historical Human Activity in Coastal Habitat Loss. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Matsubayashi, J.; Morimoto, J.O.; Tayasu, I.; Mano, T.; Nakajima, M.; Takahashi, O.; Kobayashi, K.; Nakamura, F. Major Decline in Marine and Terrestrial Animal Consumption by Brown Bears (Ursus arctos). Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luczak, C.; Beaugrand, G.; Lindley, J.A.; Dewarumez, J.; Dubois, P.J.; Kirby, R.R. North Sea Ecosystem Change from Swimming Crabs to Seagulls. Biol. Lett. 2012, 8, 821–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Feng, J.; Huang, Q.; Chen, H.; Guo, J.; Lin, G. Restoration of Native Mangrove Wetlands Can Reverse Diet Shifts of Benthic Macrofauna Caused by Invasive Cordgrass. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 905–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Y.; Hou, X.; Shi, P.; Yu, L. Detecting Shoreline Changes in Typical Coastal Wetlands of Bohai Rim in North China. Wetlands 2013, 33, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fernández, E.; Álvarez-Salgado, X.A.; Beiras, R.; Ovejero, A.; Méndez, G. Coexistence of Urban Uses and Shellfish Production in an Upwelling-Driven, Highly Productive Marine Environment: The Case of the Ría de Vigo (Galicia, Spain). Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2016, 8, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pittman, J.; Armitage, D. How Does Network Governance Affect Social-Ecological Fit across the Land—Sea Interface? An Empirical Assessment from the Lesser Antilles. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kramer, D.B.; Stevens, K.; Williams, N.E.; Sistla, S.A.; Roddy, A.B.; Urquhart, G.R. Coastal Livelihood Transitions under Globalization with Implications for Trans-Ecosystem Interactions. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nakamura, F.; Komiyama, E. A Challenge to Dam Improvement for the Protection of Both Salmon and Human Livelihood in Shiretoko, Japan’s Third Natural Heritage Site. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 6, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Anton, C.; Gasparotti, C.; Anton, I.; Rusu, E. Implementation of a Coastal Management Model at Kinvara Bay in the North Atlantic Ocean. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Batista, C.M.; Pereira, C.I.; Botero, C.M. Improving a Decree Law about Coastal Zone Management in a Small Island Developing State: The Case of Cuba. Mar. Policy 2019, 101, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cabral, R.B.; Mamauag, S.S.; Aliño, P.M. Designing a Marine Protected Areas Network in a Data-Limited Situation. Mar. Policy 2015, 59, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Văidianu, N.; Tătui, F.; Ristea, M.; Stănică, A. Managing Coastal Protection through Multi-Scale Governance Structures in Romania. Mar. Policy 2020, 112, 103567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Leeks, G.J.L.; Jarvie, H.P. Introduction to the Land–Ocean Interaction Study (LOIS): Rationale and International Context. Sci. Total. Environ. 1998, 210, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Neal, C.; Skeffington, R.; Neal, M.; Wyatt, R.; Wickham, H.; Hill, L.; Hewitt, N. Rainfall and Runoff Water Quality of the Pang and Lambourn, Tributaries of the River Thames, South-Eastern England. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2004, 8, 601–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, X.; Tu, C.; Luo, Y.; Christie, P. Distribution of Heavy Metals in Soils of the Yellow River Delta: Concentrations in Different Soil Horizons and Source Identification. J. Soils Sediments 2014, 14, 1158–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pittman, J.; Armitage, D. Governance across the Land-Sea Interface: A Systematic Review. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 64, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gelcich, S.; Martínez-Harms, M.J.; Tapia-Lewin, S.; Vasquez-Lavin, F.; Ruano-Chamorro, C. Comanagement of Small-Scale Fisheries and Ecosystem Services. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lau, J.D.; Hicks, C.C.; Gurney, G.G.; Cinner, J.E. What Matters to Whom and Why? Understanding the Importance of Coastal Ecosystem Services in Developing Coastal Communities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Crowell, M.; Edelman, S.; Coulton, K.; McAfee, S. How Many People Live in Coastal Areas? J. Coast. Res. 2007, 23, iii–vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Guerrero-Gatica, M.; Mujica, M.I.; Barceló, M.; Vio-Garay, M.F.; Gelcich, S.; Armesto, J.J. Traditional and Local Knowledge in Chile: Review of Experiences and Insights for Management and Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Spiller, D.A.; Piovia-Scott, J.; Wright, A.N.; Yang, L.H.; Takimoto, G.; Schoener, T.W.; Iwata, T. Marine Subsidies Have Multiple Effects on Coastal Food Webs. Ecology 2010, 91, 1424–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Polis, G.A.; Strong, D.R. Food Web Complexity and Community Dynamics. Am. Nat. 1996, 147, 813–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Polis, G.A.; Hurd, S.D. Linking Marine and Terrestrial Food Webs: Allochthonous Input from the Ocean Supports High Secondary Productivity on Small Islands and Coastal Land Communities. Am. Nat. 1996, 147, 396–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dugan, P.J.; Barlow, C.; Agostinho, A.A.; Baran, E.; Cada, G.F.; Chen, D.; Cowx, I.G.; Ferguson, J.W.; Jutagate, T.; Mallen-Cooper, M.; et al. Fish Migration, Dams, and Loss of Ecosystem Services in the Mekong Basin. Ambio 2010, 39, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Polis, G.A.; Anderson, W.B.; Holt, R.D. Toward an Integration of Landscape and Food Web Ecology: The Dynamics of Spatially Subsidized Food Webs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1997, 28, 289–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Arismendi, I.; Soto, D. Are Salmon-Derived Nutrients Being Incorporated in Food Webs of Invaded Streams? Evidence from Southern Chile. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2012, 405, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Friedl, G.; Wüest, A. Disrupting Biogeochemical Cycles-Consequences of Damming. Aquat. Sci. 2002, 64, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Freeman, M.C.; Pringle, C.M.; Greathouse, E.A.; Freeman, B.J. Ecosystem-Level Consequences of Migratory Faunal Depletion Caused by Dams. In American Fisheries Society Symposium; Citeseer: State College, PA, USA, 2003; Volume 35, pp. 255–266. [Google Scholar]
  79. Baxter, R.M. Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1977, 8, 255–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Heatwole, H. Marine-Dependent Terrestrial Biotic Communities on Some Cays in the Coral Sea. Ecology 1971, 52, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Persson, L.; Carney Almroth, B.M.; Collins, C.D.; Cornell, S.; de Wit, C.A.; Diamond, M.L.; Fantke, P.; Hassellöv, M.; MacLeod, M.; Ryberg, M.W.; et al. Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 1510–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Villarrubia-Gómez, P.; Cornell, S.E.; Fabres, J. Marine Plastic Pollution as a Planetary Boundary Threat—The Drifting Piece in the Sustainability Puzzle. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Decision tree of articles selected based on a PRISMA flow diagram. Description of the selection process for articles on land–sea interactions. After all filters, we obtained a total of 166 publications.
Figure 1. Decision tree of articles selected based on a PRISMA flow diagram. Description of the selection process for articles on land–sea interactions. After all filters, we obtained a total of 166 publications.
Sustainability 15 08068 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of publications in the world. (a) Number of total publications of each country. (b) Number of management publications by country.
Figure 2. Distribution of publications in the world. (a) Number of total publications of each country. (b) Number of management publications by country.
Sustainability 15 08068 g002
Figure 3. Number of publications per year. Colored bars indicate the different research disciplines.
Figure 3. Number of publications per year. Colored bars indicate the different research disciplines.
Sustainability 15 08068 g003
Figure 4. Number of publications by focus of research grouped by discipline. Colored bars indicate the different focus of research. Focuses of research that were not represented by publications in any discipline (i.e., n = 0) are not included in the figure.
Figure 4. Number of publications by focus of research grouped by discipline. Colored bars indicate the different focus of research. Focuses of research that were not represented by publications in any discipline (i.e., n = 0) are not included in the figure.
Sustainability 15 08068 g004
Figure 5. Number of publications that address drivers of change on ecosystem services. (a) Direct drivers on land–sea interactions affecting ecosystem services. (b) Indirect drivers on land–sea interactions affecting ecosystem services. Drivers that were not represented by publications in any ecosystem service (i.e., n = 0) are not included in the figure.
Figure 5. Number of publications that address drivers of change on ecosystem services. (a) Direct drivers on land–sea interactions affecting ecosystem services. (b) Indirect drivers on land–sea interactions affecting ecosystem services. Drivers that were not represented by publications in any ecosystem service (i.e., n = 0) are not included in the figure.
Sustainability 15 08068 g005
Figure 6. Number of publications of the relation between ecosystem services and human well-being. Human well-being categories that were not represented by publications in any ecosystem service (i.e., n = 0) are not included in the figure.
Figure 6. Number of publications of the relation between ecosystem services and human well-being. Human well-being categories that were not represented by publications in any ecosystem service (i.e., n = 0) are not included in the figure.
Sustainability 15 08068 g006
Figure 7. Number of publications and management approaches. Not addressed category means that the publication recognizes a management problem, but it does not have a management approach.
Figure 7. Number of publications and management approaches. Not addressed category means that the publication recognizes a management problem, but it does not have a management approach.
Sustainability 15 08068 g007
Figure 8. Number of publications and participation of different social actors in research of land–sea interactions.
Figure 8. Number of publications and participation of different social actors in research of land–sea interactions.
Sustainability 15 08068 g008
Table 1. Criteria to synthesize the review in different aspects relevant to management.
Table 1. Criteria to synthesize the review in different aspects relevant to management.
Criteria of ClassificationDefinitionCategories
Year of publicationYear when study was published1975–2020
Country of studyCountry where study was carried out
Discipline of researchArea or branch of knowledge of how research might be studiedBiogeochemistry
Focus of researchMain focus of research of articles based on the objectives of the investigationClimate Change
Food web
Land-cover change
Nutrient flux
Social Ecology
Water quality
Sea-level rise
Problem identificationIf publication addresses and provides explicit management recommendationsYes
Management ApproachProvides an explicit approach to address the management strategiesEcosystem-based management
Integrated management
Land–sea conservation planning
Participation of social actors and type of knowledgeTypes of social actors who were involved in the researchLocal community
Private Sector
Table 2. Criteria to classify publications according to the Ecosystem Services Framework.
Table 2. Criteria to classify publications according to the Ecosystem Services Framework.
Criteria of ClassificationDefinitionCategories
Direct Drivers of ChangeFactors that directly cause a change in the ecosystemAgricultural and forestry
Marine and freshwater
Industrial and military effluents
Urban wastewater
Harvesting of terrestrial animals
Invasive species
Introduced material genetic
Climate Change
Sea-level rise
Indirect Drivers of ChangeFactors that indirectly cause a change in the ecosystemSocio-economic
Scientific and technological
Ecosystem ServicesIf the research addresses effects on ecosystem services that can influence human well-beingCultural (e.g., recreation,
Provisioning (e.g., food, water)
Regulating (e.g., climate, water quality)
Supporting (e.g., primary
production, pollination)
Human well-beingIf the research addresses effects on aspects of human well-being.Security
Basic material for good life
Good basic relations
Freedom of choice and action
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barceló, M.; Vargas, C.A.; Gelcich, S. Land–Sea Interactions and Ecosystem Services: Research Gaps and Future Challenges. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8068.

AMA Style

Barceló M, Vargas CA, Gelcich S. Land–Sea Interactions and Ecosystem Services: Research Gaps and Future Challenges. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8068.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barceló, Matías, Cristian A. Vargas, and Stefan Gelcich. 2023. "Land–Sea Interactions and Ecosystem Services: Research Gaps and Future Challenges" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8068.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop