Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29641611›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: A case study from the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Borja G Reguero, Michael W Beck, David N Bresch, Juliano Calil, Imen Meliane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Remote sensing and foraging data illustrate landscape-scale considerations for coastal restoration and avian management.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Assessing nature-based coastal defense.Scientific reports · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nature-based solutions for atoll habitability.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Borja G RegueroInstitute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5526-7157
Michael W BeckInstitute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.
David N BreschSwiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Juliano CalilDepartment of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.
Imen MelianeThe Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coastal risks are increasing from both development and climate change. Interest is growing in the protective role that coastal nature-based measures (or green infrastructure), such as reefs and wetlands, can play in adapting to these risks. However, a lack of quantitative information on their relative costs and benefits is one principal factor limiting their use more broadly. Here, we apply a quantitative risk assessment framework to assess coastal flood risk (from climate change and economic exposure growth) across the United States Gulf of Mexico coast to compare the cost effectiveness of different adaptation measures. These include nature-based (e.g. oyster reef restoration), structural or grey (e.g., seawalls) and policy measures (e.g. home elevation). We first find that coastal development will be a critical driver of risk, particularly for major disasters, but climate change will cause more recurrent losses through changes in storms and relative sea level rise. By 2030, flooding will cost $134-176.6 billion (for different economic growth scenarios), but as the effects of climate change, land subsidence and concentration of assets in the coastal zone increase, annualized risk will more than double by 2050 with respect to 2030. However, from the portfolio we studied, the set of cost-effective adaptation measures (with benefit to cost ratios above 1) could prevent up to $57-101 billion in losses, which represents 42.8-57.2% of the total risk. Nature-based adaptation options could avert more than $50 billion of these costs, and do so cost effectively with average benefit to cost ratios above 3.5. Wetland and oyster reef restoration are found to be particularly cost-effective. This study demonstrates that the cost effectiveness of nature-based, grey and policy measures can be compared quantitatively with one another, and that the cost effectiveness of adaptation becomes more attractive as climate change and coastal development intensifies in the future. It also shows that investments in nature-based adaptation could meet multiple objectives for environmental restoration, adaptation and flood risk reduction.

Indexed as

AcclimatizationClimate ChangeFloodsWetlandsConservation of Natural ResourcesCost-Benefit AnalysisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29641611
PMCPMC5894966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.