Next Article in Journal
Assessing Spatiotemporal Changes and Drivers of Ecological Quality in Youjiang River Valley Using RSEI and Random Forest
Previous Article in Journal
An Evaluation Framework for Regional Ecological Security Pattern Quality: A Case Study of the Taihang–Qinling Intersection Zone, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urban Land Use and Value in the Digital Economy: A Scoping Review of Disrupted Activities, Behaviours, and Mobility
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bridging Design and Climate Realities: A Meta-Synthesis of Coastal Landscape Interventions and Climate Integration

Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 611 Taft Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(9), 1709; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091709
Submission received: 30 July 2025 / Revised: 21 August 2025 / Accepted: 21 August 2025 / Published: 23 August 2025

Abstract

This paper is aimed at landscape managers and designers. It looks at 123 real-world coastal landscape projects and organizes them into clear design categories, i.e., wetland restoration, hybrid infrastructure, or urban green spaces. We looked at how these projects were framed (whether they focused on climate adaptation, flood protection, or other goals) and how they tracked performance. We are hoping to bring some clarity to a very scattered field, helping us to see patterns in what is actually being carried out in terms of landscape interventions and increasing sea levels. We are hoping to provide a practical reference for making better, more climate-responsive design decisions. Coastal cities face escalating climate-driven threats from increasing sea levels and storm surges to urban heat islands. These threats are driving increased interest in nature-based solutions (NbSs) as green adaptive alternatives to traditional gray infrastructure. Despite an abundance of individual case studies, there have been few systematic syntheses aimed at landscape designers and managers linking design typologies, project framing, and performance outcomes. This study addresses this gap through a meta-synthesis of 123 implemented coastal landscape interventions aimed directly at landscape-oriented research and professions. Flood risk reduction was the dominant framing strategy (30.9%), followed by climate resilience (24.4%). Critical evidence gaps emerged—only 1.6% employed integrated monitoring approaches, 30.1% provided ambiguous performance documentation, and mean monitoring quality scored 0.89 out of 5.0. While 95.9% of the projects acknowledged SLR as a driver, only 4.1% explicitly integrated climate projections into design parameters. Community monitoring approaches demonstrated significantly higher ecosystem service integration, particularly cultural services (36.4% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001 ), and enhanced monitoring quality (mean score 1.64 vs. 0.76, p < 0.001 ). Implementation barriers spanned technical constraints, institutional fragmentation, and data limitations, each affecting 20.3% of projects. Geographic analysis revealed evidence generation inequities, with systematic underrepresentation of high-risk regions (Africa: 4.1%; Latin America: 2.4%) versus concentration in well-resourced areas (North America: 27.6%; Europe: 17.1%).

1. Introduction

Coastal cities worldwide face mounting risks from sea level rise (SLR), intensified storm events, and their cascading effects on rapidly urbanized places. These challenges are particularly acute in low-lying urban regions, where exposure to flooding and shoreline erosion threatens both human and ecological systems. IPCC projections indicate that by the end of the century, millions of people will be displaced by coastal hazards unless major adaptation measures are implemented [1,2]. This is causing a growing urgency to design adaptive, multifunctional coastal landscapes that can respond to both chronic and acute climate threats while providing greener, safer, and healthier places.
Nature-based solutions (NbSs) have gained prominence as strategic alternatives or as a complement to grey infrastructure in addressing coastal risks. These green interventions—ranging from land restoration and planting strategies to levee systems and urban greenways—offer integrated benefits including storm surge attenuation, habitat enhancement, and public space creation [3,4,5]. Landscape architecture, with its capacity to synthesize spatial, ecological, and social systems, is uniquely positioned to lead coastal NbS design strategies [6,7]. However, a critical gap persists in the systematic understanding of how these projects are designed, justified, and evaluated in practice. While there is an abundance of individual case studies and modeling experiments, there is a limited cross-case synthesis of implemented interventions linking spatial design typologies to project framing narratives and reported performance outcomes [8]. The absence of standardized reporting on monitoring practices, institutional barriers, and SLR integration further impedes the development of transferable design knowledge and policy guidance.
This study addresses these knowledge gaps through the following three specific research questions: (1) What design typologies characterize implemented coastal landscape interventions? (2) How do framing strategies influence intervention selection and evaluation? (3) To what extent do projects integrate sea level rise projections into design specifications? We attempt to address these questions through a systematic analysis of 123 implemented SLR design interventions. In the process, we hope to help bridge the science–practice gap that has limited the effective translation of climate knowledge into actionable design strategies [9,10].
This analysis employs an integrated theoretical framework with the following three pathways: (1) Ecological Function—restoration interventions align with ecological framings and field monitoring due to ecosystem service delivery; (2) Risk Mitigation—hybrid systems align with flood risk framings and modeling due to infrastructure performance requirements; and (3) Adaptive Capacity—community engagement enhances integration across performance dimensions through social–ecological governance.
Our analysis is presented in four main sections. In Section 2, we review the literature on coastal risk, nature-based solutions, and the persistent challenges in translating scientific projections into implemented design interventions. In Section 3, we detail our systematic methodology for identifying, screening, and coding coastal landscape interventions, including our framework for classifying design typologies, framing strategies, and performance reporting practices. In Section 4, we present our findings on intervention patterns, including the distribution of design typologies, the role of project framing in shaping implementation and monitoring practices across different intervention types, and the integration of sea level rise considerations into design specifications. Our results can help provide landscape architects, land planners, and land-based policymakers with evidence-based guidance for selecting, adapting, and advocating for effective landscape-based, green coastal resilience strategies.

2. Literature Review

We examine three critical dimensions of coastal landscape adaptation from the literature—the emergence of nature-based solutions as alternatives to traditional gray infrastructure, the persistent challenges in translating scientific knowledge into implemented design interventions, and the current gaps in the systematic documentation of project typologies, strategic framing, and performance outcomes. This review establishes the theoretical foundation for understanding how coastal adaptation practice has evolved, identifying the knowledge gaps that this meta-synthesis addresses.

2.1. Coastal Risk and the Rise of Nature-Based Solutions

The accelerating impacts of sea level rise, storm surges, and coastal erosion have spurred renewed focus on adaptive strategies for coastal urban environments. Over 600 million people worldwide currently live in areas vulnerable to coastal flooding. This number is projected to increase to over a billion by the end of this century [11]. Economic losses from coastal flooding are expected to reach USD 14.2 trillion annually over this same period [12]. Traditional gray infrastructure including seawalls, levees, and breakwaters have dominated current strategies aimed at mitigating these effects, but these solutions often transfer risk, disrupt ecological processes, and reduce adaptive flexibility [13]. In contrast, nature-based solutions (NbSs) offer a multifunctional approach that integrates coastal defenses with ecological restoration, recreation, and socio-cultural benefits including climate-related mitigation [14].
Nature-based solutions (NbSs) have been defined as actions that utilize, protect, or restore natural ecosystems to address societal challenges, while providing benefits for both people and the environment [15,16]. They encompasses a diverse spectrum of coastal landscape interventions, including mangrove and saltmarsh restoration, living shorelines, dune and beach nourishment, and hybrid systems that combine ecological and engineered components [3,17]. Their potential for wave attenuation, sediment accretion, and biodiversity enhancement, for example, has been well-documented in ecological and engineering studies [18,19]. Recent global assessments indicate that coastal wetlands can reduce wave heights by up to 70% and provide flood protection benefits equivalent to USD 23.2 billion annually worldwide [20]. However, the spatial configurations, governance models, and monitoring strategies that underlie the successful implementations of these strategies remains fragmented across disciplines and geographies.
The effectiveness of coastal NbSs extends beyond flood protection to encompass multiple ecosystem services that traditional infrastructure does not provide. For example, mangrove ecosystems can reduce wave energy by up to 99% within the first 100 m, while providing carbon sequestration rates of 1.4–6.2 tons CO2 equivalent per hectare annually [21,22]. Similarly, Gittman et al. [23] show that living shorelines, in general, have shown superior long-term performance in sea level rise protection, with an 85% project success rate versus 45% for traditional revetments (retaining walls) over periods of 20 years [23]. Economically, NbSs for SLR have been found to be cost-effective in comparison with gray solutions, with mangrove restoration at USD 300–USD 6000 per hectare compared to USD 1.2–USD 2 million per kilometer for seawall revetments. The additional co-benefits of NbSs include tourism revenue, water purification, and carbon sequestration, which are valued at USD 23,000–USD 36,000 per hectare annually [3,24]. However, NbSs for SLR implementation face significant challenges, including technical uncertainties, regulatory frameworks lacking provisions for living infrastructure, spatial conflicts with existing developments, and inadequate long-term monitoring protocols, that limit adaptive management capacity [17,25].
Understanding type–framework–effect relationships requires grounding in three complementary theoretical frameworks. Adaptive governance theory [26] explains how different intervention typologies necessitate distinct institutional arrangements and strategic framings; for example, hybrid systems require coordination between engineering and ecological agencies, influencing their alignment with both flood risk and resilience framings. Nature-based solutions theory provides an additional foundation; interventions exist along a spectrum from natural restoration to hybrid systems, with restoration projects naturally aligning with ecological framings and field monitoring due to ecosystem service priorities. Meanwhile, hybrid systems align with flood risk framings due to infrastructure performance requirements [14]. Social–ecological systems theory [27] explains community monitoring integration patterns through governance arrangements that bridge social and ecological domains, predicting that community engagement enhances cross-domain integration and long-term maintenance planning.

2.2. From Modeling to Implementation: The Science–Practice Gap

Advances in coastal risk modeling have transformed anticipatory planning, with tools such as probabilistic inundation maps and downscaled climate projections providing increasingly granular vulnerability assessments [12,28]. However, translating predictive science into actionable, context-specific design interventions remains a persistent challenge for climate adaptation. This science–practice gap reflects systemic barriers including fragmented governance, disciplinary silos, and difficulty converting complex ecological and climatic data into spatially explicit design strategies [10,29]. While resilience planning frameworks have proliferated [30,31], they rarely resolve the operational gap between theory and design, often emphasizing visionary renderings over tested material strategies and post-construction evaluation [32]. Without frameworks that explicitly couple ecological performance with spatial and material dimensions, adaptation planning risks remaining aspirational rather than operational. This disconnect limits practitioners’ ability to draw on predictive science when designing for climate resilience, underscoring the need for the systematic analysis of implemented interventions to bridge theory and practice.
According to Joan Nassauer [33], there is a dichotomy between the art and science of landscape design and management. The science is aimed at evidence and interdisciplinary examinations, while the design element is focused more on uniqueness and individuality. Many designers, in fact, misunderstand the means of quantified methods, seeing it as a limitation to creativity [33]. This fundamental tension is particularly acute in coastal adaptation, where designers must reconcile probabilistic climate projections with site-specific esthetic, cultural, and functional requirements [34]. Scientific models typically present uncertainty ranges and statistical probabilities that do not translate directly into design specifications such as elevation thresholds, material selections, or spatial configurations [35,36]. Furthermore, the temporal scales of climate science—operating over decades to centuries—conflict with design project timelines that demand immediate decisions and visible outcomes [37]. The result is a persistent gap where scientifically sound adaptation strategies remain unrealized because they cannot be effectively operationalized through design practice. This disconnect is compounded by professional education systems that rarely integrate climate science literacy with design training, creating practitioners who may lack the technical fluency to interpret and apply complex environmental data [38]. Without systematic documentation relating to how successful projects have navigated this science–design interface, the field continues to rely on ad hoc approaches rather than evidence-based frameworks for implementation. Without frameworks that explicitly couple ecological performance with spatial and material dimensions, adaptation planning risks remaining aspirational rather than operational. This disconnect limits practitioners’ ability to draw on predictive science when designing for climate resilience, underscoring the need for a systematic analysis of implemented interventions to bridge theory and practice.

2.3. Gaps in Typology, Framing, and Performance Evidence

Despite a surge in published case studies on coastal landscape interventions, the literature remains highly fragmented across disciplinary domains. This fragmentation manifests through divergent terminologies, spatial scales, and performance metrics, impeding cross-case comparison and broader synthesis [25]. For example, there are few studies that systematically compare design typologies, strategic framing narratives, or performance outcomes across geographies and project types. This limits knowledge transfer and generalizability [39]. It also limits the integration of these ideas into the design realm.
One critical gap lies in the articulation of project framing. While some interventions bring risk reduction and climate adaptation to the foreground, others prioritize ecological restoration, urban regeneration, or recreational enhancement [40]. These framings are not merely rhetorical—they influence funding streams, stakeholder alignment, and evaluation criteria. Despite the emerging recognition of their strategic role in shaping implementation trajectories and public legitimacy, these types of framing exercises are limited [41].
Additionally, although sea level rise (SLR) is widely acknowledged as a critical threat, it is infrequently treated as an explicit design driver. Most case studies offer little discussion on how SLR projections have influenced intervention thresholds, spatial configuration, or adaptive management protocols [42]. This absence underscores a broader disconnect between climate modeling and site-specific design praxis, echoing earlier concerns about the science–practice divide.
Equally concerning is the scarcity of long-term monitoring data. While nature-based solutions (NbSs) are frequently lauded for their multifunctional benefits, fewer than 30% of reviewed interventions report performance data beyond initial construction phases [43]. Comprehensive assessments using ecological transects, hydrodynamic modeling, or social outcome evaluations are difficult to find. Temmerman and Kirwan [44] argue that sustaining coastal protection under rising sea levels requires adaptive monitoring regimes that track biophysical feedback and sediment dynamics. However, such approaches are currently underrepresented in the published literature.
In summary, the field suffers from a triple fragmentation, as follows: (1) a lack of consistent typological classification, (2) limited comparative analysis of strategic framing, and (3) sparse reporting on longitudinal performance. Addressing these gaps is essential to inform future design, scale effective strategies, and build an evidence base that supports the broader institutional uptake of coastal nature-based solutions.

3. Materials and Methods

In this study, we employ a systematic meta-synthesis approach to analyze the implemented coastal landscape interventions that are documented in the peer-reviewed literature. The methodology was designed to address our three research questions through systematic literature identification, comprehensive data extraction, and a structured analytical framework. Our approach combines automated search strategies with manual coding to ensure both comprehensiveness and analytical rigor, while developing reproducible classification systems that could accommodate the diversity of the intervention types, framing approaches, and implementation contexts found in the literature.
This systematic review follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. The systematic literature search and screening process followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Figure 1).

3.1. Literature Identification and Screening

To identify relevant studies of implemented coastal landscape interventions, we performed a systematic search using the Scopus data API with the following query: TITLE-ABS-KEY(“sea level rise”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“landscape intervention” OR “nature-based solution”) AND PUBYEAR > 2009 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND SRCTYPE(j). This search strategy was designed to capture the intersection of climate drivers (sea level rise) with landscape-scale responses (nature-based solutions and landscape interventions), focusing on peer-reviewed implementation studies rather than theoretical or modeling-only papers. A Boolean search string query was executed programmatically in R using the httr and jsonlite libraries. To ensure reliable record retrieval, articles were obtained individually using a count of 1 to avoid API response errors, with delays added between calls to comply with usage limits. Metadata fields, including article title, authors, publication year, abstract, journal name, and DOI were extracted and saved to a structured CSV file. The search was limited to journal articles (SRCTYPE(j)) to ensure peer-reviewed quality. The initial search yielded 128 records, which were then screened for full-text accessibility and inclusion criteria.
While government reports, NGO publications, and policy documents may contain valuable implementation insights, this systematic review focused on peer-reviewed sources to ensure consistent quality standards and methodological rigor.

3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:
  • Implementation focus: Described an implemented coastal landscape intervention rather than theoretical proposals, conceptual designs, or simulation studies.
  • Coastal adaptation relevance: Focused on interventions related to sea level rise, storm surges, or broader coastal adaptation challenges.
  • Sufficient detail: Provided adequate information to extract at least one key variable, including intervention type, design rationale, reported performance, monitoring practices, or implementation context.
  • Publication timeline: Published between 2010 and 2024 in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Geographic scope: Located in coastal environments with explicit adaptation components.
The screening process systematically excluded duplicate entries, purely conceptual papers, modeling studies without implementation components, and interventions addressing inland or riverine systems without the relevance of coastal adaptation. Abstracts and full texts were systematically reviewed to ensure the consistent application of inclusion criteria, with borderline cases being re-evaluated to verify classification decisions.
Survivorship Bias Acknowledgment: The inclusion criteria for “implemented coastal landscape interventions” creates systematic survivorship bias by excluding terminated or failed projects that may not reach publication. This bias likely results in an overestimation of the intervention success rates and an underestimation of implementation barriers relative to the full spectrum of attempted coastal adaptation projects. While the systematic inclusion of failed cases faces methodological constraints, including limited documentation and institutional access barriers, our findings should be interpreted as representing coastal adaptation practice under favorable implementation conditions.
Terminological Consistency: To ensure analytical precision, this study employs standardized definitions. Nature-based solutions (NbSs) refers to the overarching approach utilizing natural processes for coastal adaptation challenges; green infrastructure emphasizes the functional infrastructure role of these interventions within broader coastal protection systems; marsh/wetland restoration encompasses brackish and saltwater marsh systems in temperate and subtropical regions. Meanwhile, mangrove restoration refers specifically to tropical and subtropical coastal forest restoration, reflecting distinct ecological characteristics, restoration techniques, and geographic distributions that warrant separate analytical treatment.

3.3. Data Extraction and Coding Framework

Following inclusion screening, full-text PDFs were manually reviewed and coded using a structured Excel database. The data extraction and classification process was supported by R programming (R 4.3.1) to ensure consistency, reproducibility, and efficient summary analysis. Each article was coded across several analytical dimensions designed to address our three research questions.
Design Typology Classification: To address Research Question 1 (What design typologies characterize implemented coastal landscape interventions?), intervention types were grouped into seven primary categories based on spatial form, ecological function, and infrastructural role, using pattern-based logic in R. The categories are as follows:
  • Marsh/Wetland Restoration;
  • Mangrove Restoration;
  • Beach/Dune Nourishment;
  • Hybrid/Engineered Systems (e.g., living shorelines, reefs, levees);
  • Urban Green/Resilience Strategies;
  • Governance/Synthesis (e.g., planning frameworks, comparative reviews);
  • Unspecified/Mixed (where typology was ambiguous or not reported).
Classification was automated using conditional logic (via case_when()), improving consistency while allowing for manual override where ambiguity was noted.
Framing Strategy Analysis: To address Research Question 2 (How do framing strategies influence intervention selection and evaluation?), we applied keyword-based pattern matching (via stringr::str_detect) to classify how each project justified its intervention. Six dominant framing categories were developed, as follows:
  • Climate Adaptation (e.g., “SLR”, “adaptive design”, “future scenarios”);
  • Climate Resilience (e.g., “resilient”, “multi-benefit”, “systems approach”);
  • Ecological Restoration (e.g., “wetland”, “habitat”, “carbon sequestration”);
  • Flood Risk Reduction (e.g., “storm surge”, “flood protection”);
  • Innovation/Demonstration (e.g., “pilot project”, “test bed”);
  • Other/Mixed Goals (e.g., “urban regeneration”, “equity”, “placemaking”).
Performance Monitoring and SLR Integration Assessment: To address Research Question 3 (To what extent do projects integrate sea level rise projections into design specifications?), we classified each study’s approach as follows.
  • Monitoring practices were categorized as follows:
    Modeling-based: Hydrodynamic simulations, flood projections.
    Ecological Field Methods: Biodiversity surveys, vegetation transects.
    Community/Perception-based: Stakeholder interviews, participatory evaluation.
    Integrated Mixed-methods: Combining multiple approaches.
    Ambiguously Reported: General terms without specific methods.
  • Sea Level Rise Integration was classified into three treatment types based on project rationale and design specification analysis, as follows:
    Explicit Design Integration: Direct incorporation of SLR projections into design processes.
    Contextual Justification: SLR cited as motivation without design influence.
    Background Framing: SLR mentioned only in general statements.
  • Implementation barriers were coded through a thematic analysis of author-reported challenges, resulting in ten categories including technical constraints, institutional barriers, data limitations, financial limitations, regulatory complexity, environmental degradation, disciplinary fragmentation, social barriers, and conceptual ambiguity.
  • Geographic distribution was analyzed by coding study locations into regional categories (North America, Europe, Asia—Developing, Global/Other) to examine patterns in intervention types, monitoring practices, and evidence quality across different contexts.
Coding Procedures and Reliability Assessment: To address concerns about subjective bias in single-coder extraction, coding reliability was assessed through the temporal re-coding of 12 studies (9.8%); this was conducted 12 weeks after initial coding using standardized decision trees. This temporal approach eliminates memory bias while testing the stability and consistency of classification criteria over time. Systematic decision trees were developed for all four primary variables, employing sequential keyword-based logic to minimize subjective interpretation. For intervention typology, decisions followed ecological function hierarchy (wetland → mangrove → beach → hybrid → urban → governance). Project framing prioritized explicit rationale statements using innovation → flood risk → resilience → climate adaptation → ecological restoration sequences. Monitoring approaches distinguished integration keywords from single-method descriptions, while SLR integration required both climate scenario references and quantitative design parameters for explicit classification.
Cohen’s Kappa analysis demonstrated an acceptable-to-substantial agreement across all variables (mean κ = 0.637 ), as follows: intervention typology ( κ = 0.597 ), project framing ( κ = 0.684 ), monitoring approaches ( κ = 0.444 ), and SLR integration ( κ = 0.824 ). Detailed coding decision trees with sequential logic and keyword specifications are available upon request to ensure methodological transparency and enable replication. The particularly high reliability for SLR integration ( κ = 0.824 ) reflects the effectiveness of strict operational criteria requiring both scenario anchors and parametric specifications. While independent multi-coder reliability represents optimal practice, this temporal reliability approach with systematic decision trees demonstrates the consistent application of coding criteria while acknowledging resource constraints faced by systematic review research.
SLR Integration Operational Classification: SLR integration assessment employed the following explicit operational definitions. Explicit design integration required both (a) climate scenario references (specific SLR projections, RCP/SSP pathways, or temporal benchmarks) AND (b) quantitative design parameters (elevation thresholds ≥0.5 m, adaptive triggers with defined time horizons, or scenario-informed spatial configurations). Contextual justification included SLR as a project motivation without technical design influence. Background framing comprised general SLR mentions without meaningful project connection. All classifications were assigned confidence scores (0–1.0) based on evidence clarity, with inter-category boundaries verified through a systematic re-review of borderline cases.

3.4. Data Analysis and Visualization

All categorical variables were summarized using dplyr::count() and were visualized using ggplot2::geom_bar() or geom_tile() for typology–framing cross-tabulations. Categorical codes were applied consistently using an iterative process, where initial codes were refined and consolidated into higher-level typologies. The following table summarizes the key variables systematically collected (Table 1).

3.5. Monitoring Quality Assessment Framework

To address the substantial proportion of studies with ambiguous monitoring descriptions (30.1%, n = 37 ) and to systematically evaluate monitoring rigor, we developed a 0–5 monitoring quality scoring framework built upon our foundational categorical classification, as follows:
  • Score 0: no or ambiguous monitoring;
  • Score 1: single method with basic implementation;
  • Score 2: single method with detailed protocols;
  • Score 3: multiple methods integration;
  • Score 4: integrated mixed-methods with systematic triangulation;
  • Score 5: comprehensive adaptive monitoring with feedback mechanisms.
Quality scores were assigned through a systematic text analysis of monitoring descriptions, with the algorithm first identifying ambiguous cases using our established “Ambiguously Reported” category (30.1%, n = 37 ), then applying pattern recognition to assess methodological detail and integration complexity within modeling-based, field monitoring, and community-based approaches. The framework achieved exact correspondence with foundational categories and enabled the statistical analysis of correlations between monitoring quality and sustainability indicators (quantitative outcomes, long-term planning, and explicit SLR integration) using Pearson’s correlations and independent samples t-tests ( α = 0.05 ), providing a quantitative assessment of methodological rigor while maintaining compatibility with established monitoring classifications.

3.6. Statistical Analysis Framework

We employed non-parametric statistical methods to examine associations between intervention characteristics, framing strategies, and community monitoring practices. Given categorical variables and small cell counts, we selected chi-square and exact tests appropriate for sparse data structures.
Statistical Analysis Procedures: Categorical associations between intervention typologies and framing strategies were assessed using Pearson’s chi-square tests, with assumptions being verified by ensuring ≤20% of cells had expected frequencies < 5. Effect size was measured using Cramér’s V, with standardized residuals being analyzed to identify cells contributing significantly to associations ( | z | > 2 ). For community monitoring relationships, Fisher’s exact tests were employed where chi-square assumptions were violated due to small expected frequencies. All statistical analyses were conducted in R 4.3.1, with significance set at α = 0.05 , acknowledging that multiple comparisons may inflate Type I error rates. Non-significant associations were retained in analysis to document the absence of systematic patterns rather than the selective reporting of significant results.
Scale Proxy Development: To address limited spatial extent reporting (only 2.4% of studies provided quantitative spatial data), we developed composite scale proxy variables using available project characteristics. The scale proxy integrated the following four dimensions: (1) intervention type scores based on typical project scales (1–4 scale), (2) duration-based complexity indicators, (3) regional development context, and (4) project complexity measures including monitoring integration and SLR incorporation. This composite approach (mean = 2.02, SD = 0.30) enabled scale-stratified analysis despite the systematic under-reporting of spatial extent data.
Scale Analysis Limitations: Project scale analysis was constrained by systematic under-reporting, whereby only three studies (2.4%) provided quantitative spatial extent data that were sufficient for scale-stratified analysis. While this documentation gap prevents the systematic examination of scale-dependent monitoring patterns that may disadvantage small-scale projects, the gap itself represents an important methodological finding about reporting standards in coastal adaptation research that constrains evidence-based practice development.

4. Results

A total of 123 studies were included in the final analysis, spanning diverse geographic contexts, intervention types, and disciplinary perspectives. The reviewed studies ranged from singular case studies to comprehensive syntheses of multiple implemented interventions. Publication dates were concentrated between 2015 and 2024, with 89% of studies being published during this period, reflecting accelerating attention to nature-based and landscape-scale coastal adaptation strategies (Table 2).

4.1. Design Typologies of Coastal Landscape Interventions

Seven primary intervention categories were identified through a systematic classification of the 123 studies (Figure 2). Marsh/Wetland Restoration (n = 46; 37.4%) was the most frequent intervention type, employing tidal reconnection and sediment placement techniques including breach-and-fill and thin-layer deposition methods. Hybrid/Engineered Systems (n = 20; 16.3%) included reef structures, living shorelines, and vegetated revetments that combine engineered protection with ecological enhancement. Unspecified/Mixed typologies (n = 18; 14.6%) captured studies lacking specific intervention detail or focusing on global syntheses, with 44% being explicitly labeled as meta-analyses or scenario-modeling studies. Urban Green/Resilience interventions (n = 11; 8.9%) addressed compound risks in densely populated areas, combining stormwater management, urban greening, and public co-benefits. Mangrove Restoration (n = 10; 8.1%) and Beach/Dune Nourishment (n = 10; 8.1%) represented location-specific ecological strategies. Governance/Synthesis projects (n = 8; 6.5%) emphasized institutional arrangements, policy innovation, or comparative frameworks without site-specific interventions.
Project Scale Documentation Gap: Systematic analysis revealed critical documentation gaps—only three studies (2.4%) reported quantitative spatial extent data, with variation ranging from pilot projects (9.4 ha) to landscape-scale interventions (4964 ha). This near-complete absence of scale reporting (97.6% of studies) constrains the scale-stratified analysis of monitoring effectiveness and may mask monitoring disadvantages that disproportionately affect small-scale projects with limited resources and institutional capacity.
Scale–Monitoring Relationships: Analysis using composite scale proxies (mean = 2.02, SD = 0.30, range: 1.17–2.67) across scale categories of Smaller (41 projects; 33.3%), Medium (50 projects; 40.7%), and Larger (32 projects; 26.0%) revealed that monitoring quality showed no significant relationship with project scale. Community monitoring showed no scale dependence ( r = 0.019 , CI: −0.195 to 0.159, p adjusted = 0.839 ), with negligible effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.046 ). However, long-term focus correlated significantly with project scope ( r = 0.265 , CI: 0.093 to 0.423, p adjusted = 0.009 ).
The typology × framing analysis (Figure 3) revealed that while flood risk reduction was the most common justification for Marsh/Wetland Restoration (18 of 46 projects), these projects also frequently emphasized Climate Resilience (n = 10) and ecological restoration (n = 8) goals. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant association between intervention types and framing strategies ( χ 2 = 30.136 , d f = 30 , p = 0.459 , Cramér’s V = 0.221 ), indicating framing flexibility across intervention types.

4.2. Project Framing and Rationale Patterns

Six dominant framing narratives were identified across the 123 studies (Figure 4). Flood Risk Reduction was the most prevalent framing (n = 38; 30.9%), emphasizing surge protection, erosion control, and hazard mitigation with quantifiable outcomes such as reduced inundation and wave attenuation.
Climate Resilience appeared in 30 studies (24.4%), emphasizing long-term adaptation capacity and system robustness through flexible design strategies and multi-benefit outcomes. Ecological Restoration was the primary rationale in 20 studies (16.3%), focusing on biodiversity recovery, ecosystem services, and natural processes.
Other/Mixed Goals encompassed 20 studies (16.3%), with compound rationales including environmental justice, spatial quality, urban greening, or multifunctional co-benefits. Climate Adaptation was explicitly referenced in 14 studies (11.4%) as a response to sea level rise, storm surge intensification, or compound climate threats. Innovation/Demonstration framing appeared in only one study (0.8%).

4.3. Performance Monitoring Practices

Monitoring approaches were classified into five categories based on reported methods (Figure 5). Modeling-based evaluation was most common (n = 38; 30.9%), typically involving hydrodynamic simulations, sediment transport models, or flood projections. A concerning 30.1% of studies (n = 37) reported monitoring ambiguously without specific methods or indicators, using vague terms such as “impact assessment” or “monitoring planned” that provided little actionable detail. Ecological field monitoring appeared in 24 studies (19.5%), including biodiversity surveys, vegetation transects, and habitat mapping. Community/perception-based monitoring appeared in 22 projects (17.9%), incorporating stakeholder interviews, participatory evaluation, and social impact assessment. Integrated mixed-methods monitoring was documented in only two projects (1.6%), representing a fundamental research infrastructure gap.
Community Monitoring and Social–Ecological Integration: Statistical analysis revealed that community monitoring projects showed markedly higher ecosystem services integration across multiple categories. Cultural services integration was 29.5 percentage points higher (36.4% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001 ), reflecting emphasis on recreational amenities, esthetic values, and public space creation. Supporting services showed elevated integration rates (54.5% vs. 35.6%), while provisioning services were notably absent in community monitoring projects (0% vs. 9.9% for other approaches), indicating the prioritization of non-extractive, public benefit outcomes over commercial resource utilization.
Community monitoring projects addressed an average of 1.05 ecosystem service categories compared to 0.71 for other approaches ( t = 1.868 , p = 0.070 ), suggesting that participatory engagement expands project consideration beyond technical flood protection to encompass multiple social–ecological benefits. Community monitoring projects demonstrated a significantly higher maintenance focus, with 77.3% explicitly addressing long-term considerations compared to 52.5% for other approaches ( χ 2 = 3.575 , p = 0.059 ), as well as showing an enhanced monitoring quality (mean score 1.64 vs. 0.76, p < 0.001 ), indicating a strong integration between social engagement and methodological rigor (Figure 6).
Quantitative Performance Outcomes and Evidence Quality: Only 18 projects (14.6%) reported quantifiable metrics, representing a fundamental research infrastructure gap. By intervention type, quantitative outcomes varied, as follows: Marsh/Wetland Restoration showed the highest rates (21.7%; 10/46 projects), followed by Urban Green/Resilience (18.2%; 2/11 projects), Beach/Dune Nourishment (10%; 1/10 projects), Hybrid/Engineered Systems (10%; 2/20 projects), and Mangrove Restoration (10%; 1/10 projects). Projects with quantitative outcomes included 11 with flood control metrics—6 with ecological metrics and 4 with cost–benefit metrics.

4.4. Monitoring Quality and Sustainability Outcomes

Monitoring Quality Scoring Framework: To address the substantial proportion of studies with ambiguous monitoring descriptions, we implemented a systematic monitoring quality scoring framework (0-5 scale) based on methodological rigor and comprehensiveness. The assessment revealed critical monitoring gaps across coastal adaptation practice (Figure 7).
Monitoring Quality Distribution: The mean monitoring quality score across all projects was 0.89 out of 5.0, indicating fundamental capacity limitations. The distribution showed 30.1% with ambiguous or no clear monitoring (score 0, n = 37 ), 55.3% using basic single methods (score 1, n = 68 ), 4.9% employing detailed single methods (score 2, n = 6 ), 8.9% using multiple methods (score 3, n = 11 ), and 0.8% achieving integrated mixed-methods standards (score 4, n = 1 ). Zero projects achieved comprehensive adaptive monitoring (score 5), representing a critical gap in multidisciplinary assessment approaches that could support adaptive management.
Community Monitoring Quality Patterns: Community monitoring projects demonstrated significantly higher quality scores (mean = 1.64) compared to other approaches (mean = 0.76, p < 0.001 ). Among community monitoring projects, 59.1% employed basic methods ( n = 13 ), 18.2% used detailed protocols ( n = 4 ), and 22.7% integrated multiple approaches ( n = 5 ), indicating enhanced methodological sophistication in participatory evaluation contexts.
Quality–Sustainability Correlations: Correlation analysis revealed significant associations between monitoring quality and key sustainability indicators. Higher quality monitoring correlated significantly with explicit SLR integration ( r = 0.192 , p = 0.033 ), though correlations with quantitative outcomes ( r = 0.081 , p = 0.372 ) and long-term focus ( r = 0.103 , p = 0.258 ) were not statistically significant. This establishes monitoring rigor as a predictor of climate-informed design practice while highlighting the need for stronger connections between monitoring quality and measurable outcomes.
Temporal Patterns and Intervention Outcomes: Duration information was available for 46 projects (37.4%), with 77 projects (62.6%) not reporting duration data. Among teh projects with duration data, 6 were short-term (≤3 years) and 40 were long-term (>3 years) projects, with durations ranging from 0.3 to 100 years. Dynamic or adaptive monitoring appeared in only six projects (4.9%), representing substantial gaps in adaptive management capacity.
Systematic outcome classification revealed 54 projects (43.9%) with positive outcomes reported, 37 projects (30.1%) with no clear outcome assessment, 19 projects (15.4%) reporting challenges/limitations, and 13 projects (10.6%) with mixed/ongoing outcomes. However, these success rates may overestimate intervention effectiveness due to the systematic exclusion of terminated or failed projects from the published literature.

4.5. Integration of Sea Level Rise in Design

The application of operational classification criteria with confidence scoring revealed minimal explicit SLR integration in coastal design practice. Only five studies (4.1%) demonstrated explicit design integration, characterized by both climate scenario references (RCP/SSP projections, temporal benchmarks) and quantitative design parameters (specific elevations, adaptive thresholds). The majority of studies (98 studies, 79.7%) provided only background framing of SLR without meaningful connection to project design. Contextual justification appeared in 20 studies (16.3%), where SLR motivated project development but did not influence design specifications (Figure 8).
Climate Scenario Integration Gaps: All studies achieving explicit integration demonstrated high confidence scores (0.8), with 100% including both scenario anchors and parametric specifications. However, no projects used standardized IPCC scenario frameworks (0 projects used RCP scenarios, 0 used SSP scenarios, 0 referenced IPCC), though 5 projects included quantitative SLR values. This science–practice gap reveals that while climate awareness is widespread (95.9% of projects acknowledge SLR), translating this awareness into operational design parameters remains a fundamental challenge.

4.6. Implementation Challenge Typology

Implementation barriers were reported in 67 studies (54.5%), revealing ten recurring constraint categories (Figure 9). The three most prevalent challenges were technical constraints ( n = 25 ; 20.3%), institutional barriers ( n = 25 ; 20.3%), and data limitations ( n = 25 ; 20.3%).
Technical constraints included hydrological mismatches, substrate incompatibility, and limitations in sediment transport or salinity regimes. Institutional barriers involved fragmented governance, conflicting mandates, or lack of legal clarity around nature-based solutions. Data limitations included outdated elevation models, coarse-resolution subsidence estimates, or unvalidated hydrodynamic inputs.
Financial limitations appeared in seven studies (5.7%), regulatory complexity in four studies (3.3%), and environmental degradation or external risks in four studies (3.3%). Disciplinary fragmentation ( n = 4 ; 3.3%) involved conflicting priorities between professionals, while social or engagement barriers ( n = 3 ; 2.4%) included limited consultation or local opposition. Conceptual ambiguity appeared in two studies (1.6%).

4.7. Geographic Distribution and Regional Monitoring Patterns

Regional Distribution: Studies originated from eight regional categories (Figure 10). North America contributed the largest number of studies (n = 34; 27.6%), followed by Asia—Developing (n = 24; 19.5%), Europe (n = 21; 17.1%), and Other regions (n = 18; 14.6%). Multi-Region/Global studies accounted for 11 studies (8.9%), Asia-Pacific—Developed accounted for 7 studies (5.7%), Africa accounted for 5 studies (4.1%), and Latin America accounted for 3 studies (2.4%).
Regional Variations in Specific Monitoring Documentation. The percentage of studies reporting specific monitoring methods varied considerably across regions (Figure 11). Africa demonstrated the highest rate of specific monitoring documentation (80.0%; 4 of 5 studies), followed by Other regions (72.2%; 13 of 18 studies) and Asia—Developing (66.7%; 16 of 24 studies). Latin America showed specific monitoring in 66.7% of studies (2 of 3 studies), while North America reported specific monitoring in 64.7% of studies (22 of 34 studies). Asia-Pacific— Developed and Europe each documented specific monitoring in 57.1% of studies (4 of 7 studies and 12 of 21 studies, respectively). Multi-Region/Global studies showed the lowest rate of specific monitoring documentation at 45.5% (5 of 11 studies).
Distribution of Monitoring Methods by Region: Model-based monitoring was most prevalent in North America (n = 12), followed by Asia—Developing (n = 8) and Other regions (n = 8). Europe showed equal distribution between model-based and field-based approaches (n = 6 each). Field-based monitoring was most common in the North America (n = 9) and Asia—Developing regions (n = 6). Community-based monitoring appeared infrequently across all regions, with Asia—Developing (n = 2) and Other regions (n = 2) showing the highest counts (Figure 12).

4.8. Coding Reliability Assessment

Inter-rater reliability was assessed through the independent re-coding of a random sample of 12 studies (9.8%) using standardized operational definitions consistent with all systematic classifications. Cohen’s Kappa analysis demonstrated acceptable-to-substantial agreement across core variables—intervention typology ( κ = 0.597 , moderate agreement), project framing ( κ = 0.684 , substantial agreement), monitoring approaches ( κ = 0.444 , moderate agreement), and SLR integration ( κ = 0.824 , almost-perfect agreement). Mean reliability across available variables was κ = 0.637 , confirming the consistent application of systematic classification criteria matching those used throughout the analysis.

5. Discussion

This meta-synthesis of 123 documented coastal landscape interventions reveals both the promise and limitations of current nature-based adaptation practice, as represented in the peer-reviewed literature. While the diversity of implemented typologies demonstrates growing sophistication in coastal adaptation strategies, persistent gaps in performance monitoring, climate integration, and institutional capacity constrain the development of evidence-based practice. The findings highlight critical disconnects between the scientific understanding of coastal risks and operational design implementation, while also revealing significant geographic disparities in evidence quality that threaten equitable adaptation outcomes.

5.1. Design Typologies and Project Framing Reveal Practice Maturation

The seven intervention typologies identified in this meta-synthesis reveal how coastal adaptation is evolving from singular ecological restoration efforts to more complex, hybridized, and multifunctional design strategies. The continued dominance of Marsh/Wetland Restoration (37.4%) confirms the practical reliability and ecological familiarity of these interventions—“low-regret” solutions that offer both risk reduction and habitat benefits with established implementation pathways. The underrepresentation of Urban Green/Resilience strategies (8.9%) reflects an evidence gap rather than a lack of relevance. Multifunctional urban coastal spaces are likely documented in municipal reports and design briefs that fall outside the academic literature, suggesting a priority area for research translation and the systematic documentation of urban implementation outcomes.
While Flood Risk Reduction (30.9%) remains the dominant narrative, the rise in Climate Resilience (24.4%) and Ecological Restoration (16.3%) reflects growing institutional alignment with long-term adaptation thinking. The lack of significant association between intervention types and framing strategies ( χ 2 = 30.136 , p = 0.459 ) reveals strategic opportunities for improved institutional alignment, where hybrid systems could leverage restoration narratives to access ecological funding streams while maintaining their resilience focus.
Community Monitoring as an Integration Catalyst: Community monitoring projects demonstrate significantly higher ecosystem services integration across multiple categories, particularly cultural services (36.4% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001 ), reflecting emphasis on recreational amenities, esthetic values, and public space creation. The complete absence of provisioning services in community monitoring projects (0% vs. 9.9% for other approaches) indicates the prioritization of non-extractive, public benefit outcomes over commercial resource utilization.
These projects addressed an average of 1.05 ecosystem service categories compared to 0.71 for other approaches ( p = 0.070 ), demonstrating a significantly higher maintenance focus (77.3% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.059 ) and an enhanced monitoring quality (mean score 1.64 vs. 0.76, p < 0.001 ). The scale-independence of community monitoring ( r = 0.019 , p = 0.839 ) demonstrates that participatory approaches are equally viable across project sizes, offering opportunities for systematic integration across diverse coastal contexts without scale-dependent constraints.

5.2. Critical Evidence Gaps and Climate Integration Failures

Despite no studies omitting monitoring entirely, fundamental limitations constrain the field’s capacity for evidence-based advancement. The monitoring quality assessment revealed a mean score of 0.89 out of 5.0, with 30.1% offering only ambiguous monitoring ( n = 37 ), 55.3% using basic single methods ( n = 68 ), and zero projects achieving comprehensive adaptive monitoring standards. Higher quality monitoring correlated significantly with explicit SLR integration ( r = 0.192 , p = 0.033 ), establishing monitoring rigor as a predictor of climate-informed design practice, while highlighting disconnects between evaluation capacity and measurable outcomes.
Only 18 projects (14.6%) reported quantifiable metrics, with Marsh/Wetland Restoration showing the highest rates (21.7%), with significant variation across intervention types. Duration information was available for only 46 projects (37.4%), with dynamic or adaptive monitoring appearing in merely six projects (4.9%), revealing substantial gaps in adaptive management capacity essential for climate-responsive coastal interventions.
Sea Level Rise Integration Reveals Science–Practice Disconnect: The operational classification revealed minimal explicit SLR integration, with only five studies (4.1%) demonstrating both climate scenario references and quantitative design parameters. While 95.9% of projects acknowledge SLR, the majority (79.7%) provided only background framing without meaningful connection to design specifications. No projects used standardized IPCC scenario frameworks (0 projects used RCP scenarios and 0 used SSP scenarios), though 5 projects included quantitative SLR values. This science–practice gap reveals that while climate awareness is widespread, translating this awareness into operational design parameters remains a fundamental challenge.

5.3. Geographic Inequities and Implementation Barriers

Regional distribution shows a systematic underrepresentation of high-risk regions—Africa (4.1%), Latin America (2.4%) versus concentration in North America (27.6%) and Europe (17.1%). Paradoxically, Africa demonstrated the highest rate of specific monitoring documentation (80%), while Multi-Region/Global studies showed the lowest (45.5%). North America exhibits the most diverse monitoring portfolio with the highest absolute numbers across categories, while community-based monitoring concentrates in the Asia—Developing ( n = 2 ) and Other regions ( n = 2 ), with complete absence in Europe and Latin America.
Implementation barriers were reported in 67 studies (54.5%), with three dominant challenges each affecting 20.3% of projects—Technical Constraints, Institutional Barriers, and Data Limitations. The convergence of these primary barriers suggests that successful implementation requires coordinated capacity-building approaches rather than addressing individual constraints in isolation. Systematic outcome classification revealed 54 projects (43.9%) with positive outcomes versus 19 projects (15.4%) reporting challenges. However, these success rates likely overestimate intervention effectiveness due to the systematic exclusion of terminated or failed projects from the published literature, representing survivorship bias where only successfully completed projects reach documentation and peer review stages.
The limited adoption of integrated mixed-methods monitoring (1.6% of projects) reflects institutional silos and resource constraints, preventing multidisciplinary assessment integration across all regions, regardless of resource availability.

5.4. Framework for Evidence-Based Implementation

The correlation between monitoring quality and sustainability outcomes demonstrates that rigorous evaluation frameworks are not merely assessment tools but fundamental enablers of climate-responsive design practice. Projects must embed multidimensional monitoring protocols from inception, incorporating climate scenario thresholds directly into design specifications. The systematic underrepresentation of high-risk regions requires targeted capacity-building investments where monitoring and institutional infrastructure remain underdeveloped.
For practitioners, this evidence foundation demands proactive engagement with data planning, advocacy for cross-sectoral performance metrics, and the integration of climate thresholds into core design logic. The transition from promising pilots to robust, replicable interventions depends on cultivating an evidence base that is both technically rigorous and globally accessible, requiring systematic documentation of both successes and failures, standardized reporting protocols enabling cross-project learning, and institutional frameworks supporting long-term adaptive management across diverse geographic and socioeconomic contexts.

5.5. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

This meta-synthesis exhibits several limitations. The focus on the peer-reviewed literature may underrepresent community-based interventions, while geographic bias toward well-resourced regions limits generalizability to contexts where coastal risks are most acute. The systematic absence of project scale documentation (2.4% of studies) highlights the urgent need for standardized spatial extent reporting protocols. This systematic review exhibits survivorship bias by focusing on implemented interventions while excluding terminated projects, with findings representing “best-case scenario” coastal adaptation practice under favorable implementation conditions.
Critical areas for future investigation include (1) longitudinal performance studies tracking intervention effectiveness under changing climate conditions; (2) the systematic documentation of project failures and adaptive management responses; (3) the development of standardized monitoring protocols integrating ecological, engineering, and social metrics; (4) enhanced focus on evidence generation in underrepresented regions; and (5) the investigation of scale-dependent factors affecting monitoring quality and implementation success.
Inter-rater reliability demonstrated acceptable-to-substantial agreement across all variables (mean κ = 0.637 ), including the following: intervention typology ( κ = 0.597 ), project framing ( κ = 0.684 ), monitoring approaches ( κ = 0.444 ), and SLR integration ( κ = 0.824 ). The high agreement for SLR integration reflects the effectiveness of operational criteria requiring both climate scenario references and quantitative design parameters for explicit integration classification.

6. Conclusions

This meta-synthesis of 123 documented coastal landscape interventions addresses critical gaps at the intersection of coastal science and landscape practice in the peer-reviewed literature.
The findings reveal both the promise and limitations of current nature-based coastal climate adaptation. Seven intervention typologies emerged, with Marsh/Wetland Restoration dominating (37.4%) and Hybrid Engineered Systems (16.3%) representing evolution toward multifunctional solutions. However, critical gaps persist that constrain effective adaptation scaling—only 1.6% employed integrated monitoring approaches and 30.1% provided ambiguous performance documentation. Meanwhile, 95.9% of projects acknowledge sea level rise and only 4.1% explicitly integrate climate projections into design parameters.
Regional Patterns and Capacity Disparities: Geographic analysis exposed complex regional patterns challenging simple developed/developing distinctions. Africa demonstrated the highest specific monitoring documentation (80%), while Multi-Region/Global studies showed the lowest rates (45.5%). These patterns reflect different institutional priorities and methodological traditions rather than simply resource availability, pointing toward targeted, region-specific capacity development needs. The systematic underrepresentation of high-risk regions (Africa: 4.1%; Latin America: 2.4%) versus concentration in well-resourced areas (North America: 27.6%; Europe: 17.1%) reveals critical evidence generation inequities where adaptation needs are most urgent.
Monitoring Quality as a Design Determinant: Systematic monitoring quality assessment (mean score 0.89/5.0) reveals critical capacity gaps, with higher quality monitoring being significantly correlated with explicit SLR integration ( r = 0.192 , p = 0.033 ). The correlation between monitoring quality and sustainability outcomes demonstrates that rigorous evaluation frameworks are fundamental enablers of climate-responsive design practice rather than merely assessment tools.
Community Engagement and Social–Ecological Integration: Community monitoring approaches demonstrate significantly higher ecosystem services integration, particularly cultural services (36.4% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001 ) and supporting services (54.5% vs. 35.6%), confirming that participatory engagement enhances both social acceptance and ecological sustainability. Community monitoring projects also showed a higher maintenance focus (77.3% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.059 ) and an enhanced monitoring quality (mean score 1.64 vs. 0.76, p < 0.001 ), establishing community engagement as being essential for developing adaptive coastal management capacity and long-term intervention maintenance.
Research Contributions and Practical Applications: This research contributes systematic typological frameworks and implementation guidance that provide actionable direction for practitioners while identifying priorities for scaling effective coastal adaptation. The evidence-based typology × framing analysis reveals strategic opportunities for institutional alignment, while the monitoring quality framework provides replicable assessment criteria for evaluating coastal adaptation rigor. Inter-rater reliability demonstrated acceptable-to-substantial agreement across all variables (mean κ = 0.637 ), validating the systematic classification approach and ensuring reproducible methodology for future coastal adaptation research.
Future Research Priorities: Several critical areas emerge for future investigation. Longitudinal performance studies are urgently needed to understand the long-term effectiveness and adaptive capacity of different intervention types under changing climate conditions, integrating ecological, engineering, and social metrics. Climate scenario integration requires developing tools and protocols that enable landscape designers to translate SLR projections into spatial design parameters, elevation thresholds, and adaptive management triggers. Equity and justice analysis should examine how different intervention types affect vulnerable coastal communities, ensuring that nature-based solutions contribute to just adaptation outcomes.
Research should develop systematic approaches to document implementation failures through enhanced gray literature analysis and institutional partnerships in order to provide a complete understanding of coastal adaptation success and failure patterns, while prioritizing evidence generation in underrepresented regions through institutional support for integrated monitoring approaches. The systematic absence of project-scale documentation (2.4% of studies) highlights the urgent need for standardized spatial extent reporting protocols to enable a scale-stratified analysis of monitoring effectiveness and implementation outcomes.
Given the geographic limitations of this review and the survivorship bias inherent in focusing on successfully implemented interventions, future research must prioritize the systematic documentation of coastal adaptation practice in underrepresented regions and the systematic inclusion of terminated or failed projects. This comprehensive evidence base is essential for developing coastal adaptation strategies that are both scientifically rigorous and globally relevant to the diverse contexts facing accelerating sea level rise.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: B.D. and B.P.; methodology: B.D. and B.P.; software: B.P.; validation: B.P.; formal analysis: B.P.; investigation: B.P.; resources: B.P.; data curation: B.P.; writing—original draft preparation: B.P.; writing—review and editing: B.D. and B.P.; visualization: B.P.; supervision: B.D.; project administration: B.D.; funding acquisition: B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the constructive suggestions from the anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Oppenheimer, M.; Glavovic, B.; Hinkel, J.; Van de Wal, R.; Magnan, A.K.; Abd-Elgawad, A.; Cai, R.; Cifuentes-Jara, M.; Deconto, R.M.; Ghosh, T.; et al. Sea level rise and implications for low lying islands, coasts and communities. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hauer, M.E. Migration induced by sea-level rise could reshape the US population landscape. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Narayan, S.; Beck, M.W.; Reguero, B.G.; Losada, I.J.; Van Wesenbeeck, B.; Pontee, N.; Sanchirico, J.N.; Ingram, J.C.; Lange, G.M.; Burks-Copes, K.A. The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Perricone, V.; Mutalipassi, M.; Mele, A.; Buono, M.; Vicinanza, D.; Contestabile, P. Nature-based and bioinspired solutions for coastal protection: An overview among key ecosystems and a promising pathway for new functional and sustainable designs. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2023, 80, 1218–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arkema, K.K.; Griffin, R.; Maldonado, S.; Silver, J.; Suckale, J.; Guerry, A.D. Linking social, ecological, and physical science to advance natural and nature-based protection for coastal communities. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2017, 1399, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hill, K. Coastal infrastructure: A typology for the next century of adaptation to sea-level rise. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 468–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hirschfeld, D.; Hill, K.E.; Plane, E. Adapting to sea level rise: Insights from a new evaluation framework of physical design projects. Coast. Manag. 2021, 49, 636–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Huynh, L.T.M.; Su, J.; Wang, Q.; Stringer, L.C.; Switzer, A.D.; Gasparatos, A. Meta-analysis indicates better climate adaptation and mitigation performance of hybrid engineering-natural coastal defence measures. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wyborn, C.; Datta, A.; Montana, J.; Ryan, M.; Leith, P.; Chaffin, B.; Miller, C.; Van Kerkhoff, L. Co-producing sustainability: Reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2019, 44, 319–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kirchhoff, C.J.; Carmen Lemos, M.; Dessai, S. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: Broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013, 38, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kulp, S.A.; Strauss, B.H. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hinkel, J.; Lincke, D.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Perrette, M.; Nicholls, R.J.; Tol, R.S.; Marzeion, B.; Fettweis, X.; Ionescu, C.; Levermann, A. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3292–3297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Temmerman, S.; Meire, P.; Bouma, T.J.; Herman, P.M.; Ysebaert, T.; De Vriend, H.J. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 2013, 504, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, G.; Janzen, C.; Maginnis, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 97, p. 2036. [Google Scholar]
  15. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Welden, E.; Chausson, A.; Melanidis, M.S. Leveraging Nature-based Solutions for transformation: Reconnecting people and nature. People Nat. 2021, 3, 966–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Wowk, K.; Bamford, H. Future of our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 51, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Möller, I.; Kudella, M.; Rupprecht, F.; Spencer, T.; Paul, M.; Van Wesenbeeck, B.K.; Wolters, G.; Jensen, K.; Bouma, T.J.; Miranda-Lange, M.; et al. Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions. Nat. Geosci. 2014, 7, 727–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Reguero, B.G.; Beck, M.W.; Bresch, D.N.; Calil, J.; Meliane, I. Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: A case study from the Gulf Coast of the United States. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Beck, M.W.; Losada, I.J.; Menéndez, P.; Reguero, B.G.; Díaz-Simal, P.; Fernández, F. The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McIvor, A.; Möller, I.; Spencer, T.; Spalding, M. Reduction of Wind and Swell Waves by Mangroves; Technical Report; The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  22. Donato, D.C.; Kauffman, J.B.; Murdiyarso, D.; Kurnianto, S.; Stidham, M.; Kanninen, M. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gittman, R.K.; Peterson, C.H.; Currin, C.A.; Joel Fodrie, F.; Piehler, M.F.; Bruno, J.F. Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats. Ecol. Appl. 2016, 26, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kabisch, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pauleit, S.; Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Artmann, M.; Haase, D.; Knapp, S.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Vitousek, S.; Barnard, P.L.; Fletcher, C.H.; Frazer, N.; Erikson, L.; Storlazzi, C.D. Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ahern, J. From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100, 341–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liao, K.H.; Deng, S.; Tan, P.Y. Blue-green infrastructure: New frontier for sustainable urban stormwater management. In Greening Cities: Forms and Functions; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 203–226. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nassauer, J.I. Transdisciplinarity and boundary work for landscape architecture scholars. Landsc. J. 2023, 42, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brown, R.D.; Vanos, J.; Kenny, N.; Lenzholzer, S. Designing urban parks that ameliorate the effects of climate change. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Star, S.L.; Griesemer, J.R. Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1989, 19, 387–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fazey, I.; Evely, A.C.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Kruijsen, J.; White, P.C.; Newsham, A.; Jin, L.; Cortazzi, M.; Phillipson, J.; et al. Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ. Conserv. 2013, 40, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fünfgeld, H. Facilitating local climate change adaptation through transnational municipal networks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 12, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Steiner, F. Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pontee, N.; Narayan, S.; Beck, M.W.; Hosking, A.H. Nature-based solutions: Lessons from around the world. Maritime Engineering 2016, 169, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arkema, K.K.; Guannel, G.; Verutes, G.; Wood, S.A.; Guerry, A.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Kareiva, P.; Lacayo, M.; Silver, J.M. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat. Clim. Change 2013, 3, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Toxopeus, H.; Polzin, F. Reviewing financing barriers and strategies for urban nature-based solutions. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Haasnoot, M.; Lawrence, J.; Magnan, A.K. Pathways to coastal retreat. Science 2021, 372, 1287–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schoonees, T.; Gijón Mancheño, A.; Scheres, B.; Bouma, T.; Silva, R.; Schlurmann, T.; Schüttrumpf, H. Hard structures for coastal protection, towards greener designs. Estuaries Coasts 2019, 42, 1709–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Temmerman, S.; Kirwan, M.L. Building land with a rising sea. Science 2015, 349, 588–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic literature review. Flowchart showing the systematic identification, screening, and selection process for coastal landscape intervention studies. The search of the Scopus database yielded 128 initial records, with 5 records being excluded due to inaccessibility of the full text. No additional exclusions were made based on inclusion criteria, resulting in 123 studies being included in the final meta-synthesis. The diagram follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines for the transparent reporting of systematic review methodology.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic literature review. Flowchart showing the systematic identification, screening, and selection process for coastal landscape intervention studies. The search of the Scopus database yielded 128 initial records, with 5 records being excluded due to inaccessibility of the full text. No additional exclusions were made based on inclusion criteria, resulting in 123 studies being included in the final meta-synthesis. The diagram follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines for the transparent reporting of systematic review methodology.
Land 14 01709 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of coastal landscape intervention types. Distribution of seven intervention types identified from the systematic review of 123 coastal landscape projects (2010–2024). Marsh/Wetland Restoration dominates (n = 46, 37.4%), followed by Hybrid/Engineered Systems (n = 20, 16.3%), indicating field evolution toward multifunctional solutions while remaining anchored in familiar ecological interventions. The relatively even distribution of the remaining categories (6.5–14.6%) suggests diversification in coastal adaptation strategies beyond single-purpose approaches.
Figure 2. Distribution of coastal landscape intervention types. Distribution of seven intervention types identified from the systematic review of 123 coastal landscape projects (2010–2024). Marsh/Wetland Restoration dominates (n = 46, 37.4%), followed by Hybrid/Engineered Systems (n = 20, 16.3%), indicating field evolution toward multifunctional solutions while remaining anchored in familiar ecological interventions. The relatively even distribution of the remaining categories (6.5–14.6%) suggests diversification in coastal adaptation strategies beyond single-purpose approaches.
Land 14 01709 g002
Figure 3. Cross-classification of intervention types and project framing strategies. Cross-classification matrix showing relationships between intervention typologies and strategic framing narratives across 123 projects. Cell values indicate project counts, with color intensity representing frequency. Marsh/Wetland Restoration shows diverse framing—flood risk reduction ( n = 18 ), climate resilience ( n = 10 ), and ecological restoration ( n = 8 ). Chi-square analysis revealed no significant association ( χ 2 = 30.14 , p = 0.459 ), indicating framing flexibility across intervention types and strategic positioning opportunities for diverse stakeholder engagement.
Figure 3. Cross-classification of intervention types and project framing strategies. Cross-classification matrix showing relationships between intervention typologies and strategic framing narratives across 123 projects. Cell values indicate project counts, with color intensity representing frequency. Marsh/Wetland Restoration shows diverse framing—flood risk reduction ( n = 18 ), climate resilience ( n = 10 ), and ecological restoration ( n = 8 ). Chi-square analysis revealed no significant association ( χ 2 = 30.14 , p = 0.459 ), indicating framing flexibility across intervention types and strategic positioning opportunities for diverse stakeholder engagement.
Land 14 01709 g003
Figure 4. Frequency of strategic framing approaches in coastal landscape interventions. Distribution of six dominant project framing narratives used to justify coastal landscape interventions (n = 123). Flood Risk Reduction is the most prevalent framing (30.9%, n = 38), emphasizing quantifiable protection benefits such as wave attenuation and surge reduction. Climate Resilience emerges as the second most common approach (24.4%, n = 30), focusing on long-term adaptation capacity and system robustness. Ecological Restoration (16.3%, n = 20) and Other/Mixed Goals (16.3%, n = 20) each represent significant framing strategies, while Climate Adaptation appears in 11.4% of studies (n = 14). The very-low prevalence of Innovation/Demonstration framing (0.8%, n = 1) suggests that the field has moved beyond pilot project status toward operational implementation.
Figure 4. Frequency of strategic framing approaches in coastal landscape interventions. Distribution of six dominant project framing narratives used to justify coastal landscape interventions (n = 123). Flood Risk Reduction is the most prevalent framing (30.9%, n = 38), emphasizing quantifiable protection benefits such as wave attenuation and surge reduction. Climate Resilience emerges as the second most common approach (24.4%, n = 30), focusing on long-term adaptation capacity and system robustness. Ecological Restoration (16.3%, n = 20) and Other/Mixed Goals (16.3%, n = 20) each represent significant framing strategies, while Climate Adaptation appears in 11.4% of studies (n = 14). The very-low prevalence of Innovation/Demonstration framing (0.8%, n = 1) suggests that the field has moved beyond pilot project status toward operational implementation.
Land 14 01709 g004
Figure 5. Performance monitoring approaches. Distribution of monitoring methods used to evaluate intervention effectiveness across 123 coastal landscape projects. Modeling-based evaluation is most common (30.9%, n = 38 ), typically involving hydrodynamic simulations and flood projections. A concerning 30.1% of studies ( n = 37 ) report monitoring ambiguously without specific methods or indicators. Ecological field monitoring appears in 19.5% of studies ( n = 24 ), community or perception-based monitoring appears in 17.9% ( n = 22 ), and integrated mixed-methods monitoring is documented in only 1.6% of projects ( n = 2 ). Categories are based on the primary monitoring approach reported.
Figure 5. Performance monitoring approaches. Distribution of monitoring methods used to evaluate intervention effectiveness across 123 coastal landscape projects. Modeling-based evaluation is most common (30.9%, n = 38 ), typically involving hydrodynamic simulations and flood projections. A concerning 30.1% of studies ( n = 37 ) report monitoring ambiguously without specific methods or indicators. Ecological field monitoring appears in 19.5% of studies ( n = 24 ), community or perception-based monitoring appears in 17.9% ( n = 22 ), and integrated mixed-methods monitoring is documented in only 1.6% of projects ( n = 2 ). Categories are based on the primary monitoring approach reported.
Land 14 01709 g005
Figure 6. Ecosystem services integration by monitoring approach. The percentage of projects addressing different ecosystem service categories by monitoring approach. Community monitoring ( n = 22 , 17.9%) versus other approaches ( n = 101 , 82.1%) shows a significantly higher cultural services integration (36.4% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001 ) and elevated supporting services (54.5% vs. 35.6%), while showing no provisioning services integration (0% vs. 9.9%). This indicates a focus on non-extractive community benefits. Numbers represent both percentage and count (projects with service/total projects). cultural services: p < 0.001 .
Figure 6. Ecosystem services integration by monitoring approach. The percentage of projects addressing different ecosystem service categories by monitoring approach. Community monitoring ( n = 22 , 17.9%) versus other approaches ( n = 101 , 82.1%) shows a significantly higher cultural services integration (36.4% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001 ) and elevated supporting services (54.5% vs. 35.6%), while showing no provisioning services integration (0% vs. 9.9%). This indicates a focus on non-extractive community benefits. Numbers represent both percentage and count (projects with service/total projects). cultural services: p < 0.001 .
Land 14 01709 g006
Figure 7. Distribution of monitoring quality scores. Systematic assessment of monitoring rigor across 123 coastal projects using a 0–5 scoring framework. Results show 30.1% reported ambiguous monitoring ( n = 37 ), 55.3% utilized basic single methods ( n = 68 ), 4.9% detailed single methods ( n = 6 ), 8.9% followed multiple-method approaches ( n = 11 ), and 0.8% used integrated approaches ( n = 1 ). The mean monitoring quality score of 0.89/5.0 reveals critical capacity gaps that require enhanced monitoring protocols and institutional support. Higher scores indicate more comprehensive, multi-method monitoring approaches.
Figure 7. Distribution of monitoring quality scores. Systematic assessment of monitoring rigor across 123 coastal projects using a 0–5 scoring framework. Results show 30.1% reported ambiguous monitoring ( n = 37 ), 55.3% utilized basic single methods ( n = 68 ), 4.9% detailed single methods ( n = 6 ), 8.9% followed multiple-method approaches ( n = 11 ), and 0.8% used integrated approaches ( n = 1 ). The mean monitoring quality score of 0.89/5.0 reveals critical capacity gaps that require enhanced monitoring protocols and institutional support. Higher scores indicate more comprehensive, multi-method monitoring approaches.
Land 14 01709 g007
Figure 8. Classification of sea level rise (SLR) integration in 123 coastal landscape interventions using operational criteria requiring both climate scenario references and quantitative design parameters. Results show 79.7% (n = 98) provide only background framing, 16.3% (n = 20) show contextual justification without design influence, and only 4.1% (n = 5) demonstrate explicit design integration with both scenario anchors and parametric specifications. This reveals a critical science–practice gap where climate awareness rarely translates into quantified design parameters.
Figure 8. Classification of sea level rise (SLR) integration in 123 coastal landscape interventions using operational criteria requiring both climate scenario references and quantitative design parameters. Results show 79.7% (n = 98) provide only background framing, 16.3% (n = 20) show contextual justification without design influence, and only 4.1% (n = 5) demonstrate explicit design integration with both scenario anchors and parametric specifications. This reveals a critical science–practice gap where climate awareness rarely translates into quantified design parameters.
Land 14 01709 g008
Figure 9. Frequency of implementation barriers in coastal landscape projects. Implementation challenges across 67 studies (54.5%) showing three dominant barriers each affecting 20% of projects—Technical Constraints (n = 25), Institutional Barriers (n = 25), and Data Limitations (n = 25). Financial Limitations affect fewer projects (5.7%), while other barriers represent less frequent but significant challenges.
Figure 9. Frequency of implementation barriers in coastal landscape projects. Implementation challenges across 67 studies (54.5%) showing three dominant barriers each affecting 20% of projects—Technical Constraints (n = 25), Institutional Barriers (n = 25), and Data Limitations (n = 25). Financial Limitations affect fewer projects (5.7%), while other barriers represent less frequent but significant challenges.
Land 14 01709 g009
Figure 10. Geographic distribution of coastal landscape intervention studies. Geographic distribution across eight regions revealing research concentration in developed regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific: 50.4%) versus minimal representation in high-risk regions. This pattern suggests evidence generation inequities where scientific documentation may be weakest where adaptation needs are most urgent.
Figure 10. Geographic distribution of coastal landscape intervention studies. Geographic distribution across eight regions revealing research concentration in developed regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific: 50.4%) versus minimal representation in high-risk regions. This pattern suggests evidence generation inequities where scientific documentation may be weakest where adaptation needs are most urgent.
Land 14 01709 g010
Figure 11. Specific monitoring documentation rates by geographic region. Regional monitoring documentation rates showing complex patterns—Africa highest (80%), Multi-Region/Global lowest (45.5%). These disparities reflect different institutional priorities and methodological traditions rather than resource availability alone, indicating opportunities for knowledge transfer and capacity building.
Figure 11. Specific monitoring documentation rates by geographic region. Regional monitoring documentation rates showing complex patterns—Africa highest (80%), Multi-Region/Global lowest (45.5%). These disparities reflect different institutional priorities and methodological traditions rather than resource availability alone, indicating opportunities for knowledge transfer and capacity building.
Land 14 01709 g011
Figure 12. Distribution of monitoring methods across geographic regions. Cross-tabulation heat map showing monitoring method distribution across regions. Model-based monitoring dominates in North America (n = 12) and Asia—Developing (n = 8), while community-based monitoring appears infrequently but concentrates in the Asia—Developing and Other regions. This reveals regional specializations and knowledge transfer opportunities across methodological traditions.
Figure 12. Distribution of monitoring methods across geographic regions. Cross-tabulation heat map showing monitoring method distribution across regions. Model-based monitoring dominates in North America (n = 12) and Asia—Developing (n = 8), while community-based monitoring appears infrequently but concentrates in the Asia—Developing and Other regions. This reveals regional specializations and knowledge transfer opportunities across methodological traditions.
Land 14 01709 g012
Table 1. Summary of coded variables, their analytical purposes, and representative examples.
Table 1. Summary of coded variables, their analytical purposes, and representative examples.
VariablePurposeExamples
Intervention_TypeDevelop typologies of interventionsMangrove restoration, hybrid levee, living shoreline
FramingCapture strategic positioningFlood protection, climate resilience, ecological restoration
Design_StrategyDocument implementation contextMulti-layered defense, green–grey hybrid, adaptive design
PerformanceAssess effectiveness reportingFlood reduction metrics, biodiversity enhancement
Monitoring_UsedEvaluate evidence qualityModel-based assessment, field transects, stakeholder surveys
SLR_IntegrationAssess climate integrationDesign elevation thresholds and adaptive management triggers
Implementation_ChallengesIdentify common barriersRegulatory constraints, funding limitations, stakeholder resistance
LocationEnable geographic analysisCity, region, country, site name
Underscores in variable names (e.g., Intervention_Type) reflect original coding labels.
Table 2. Summary of key findings and implications across coding dimensions.
Table 2. Summary of key findings and implications across coding dimensions.
DimensionKey FindingImplication
TypologiesMarsh/wetland restoration dominates (37.4%), followed by hybrid systems (16.3%)Field shows maturation toward multifunctional approaches but remains anchored in familiar ecological interventions
FramingFlood risk reduction most common (30.9%), followed by climate resilience emerging (24.4%)Strategic framing diversity offers opportunities for multi-stakeholder engagement and funding diversification
MonitoringOne-third use modeling (30.9%), one-third ambiguously reported (30.1%), and only 1.6% use integrated methodsCritical evidence gaps constrain adaptive learning and transferability
IntegrationIn total, 95.9% acknowledge SLR, but only 4.1% explicitly integrate projections into designMajor disconnect between climate awareness and operational design parameters
BarriersTechnical constraints, institutional barriers, and data limitations each affect ∼20% of projectsMulti-dimensional challenges require coordinated capacity-building approaches
PatternsComplex regional patterns: Africa highest monitoring documentation (80%), Multi-Region/Global lowest (45.5%), with significant variations in monitoring approaches across regionsSignificant inequities in evidence generation where risks are highest
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

Pang, B.; Deal, B. Bridging Design and Climate Realities: A Meta-Synthesis of Coastal Landscape Interventions and Climate Integration. Land 2025, 14, 1709. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091709

AMA Style

Pang B, Deal B. Bridging Design and Climate Realities: A Meta-Synthesis of Coastal Landscape Interventions and Climate Integration. Land. 2025; 14(9):1709. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091709

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pang, Bo, and Brian Deal. 2025. "Bridging Design and Climate Realities: A Meta-Synthesis of Coastal Landscape Interventions and Climate Integration" Land 14, no. 9: 1709. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091709

APA Style

Pang, B., & Deal, B. (2025). Bridging Design and Climate Realities: A Meta-Synthesis of Coastal Landscape Interventions and Climate Integration. Land, 14(9), 1709. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091709

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