Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38514760›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

The value of marsh restoration for flood risk reduction in an urban estuary.

Rae Taylor-Burns, Christopher Lowrie, Babak Tehranirad, Jeremy Lowe, Li Erikson, Patrick L Barnard, Borja G Reguero, Michael W Beck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Rae Taylor-BurnsUniversity of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. rtaylorb@ucsc.edu.
Christopher LowrieUniversity of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Babak TehraniradU.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Jeremy LoweSan Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA.
Li EriksonU.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-7695
Patrick L BarnardU.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1414-6476
Borja G RegueroUniversity of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5526-7157
Michael W BeckUniversity of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5107-9973

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of nature-based solutions (NBS) for coastal climate adaptation has broad and growing interest, but NBS are rarely assessed with the same rigor as traditional engineering solutions or with respect to future climate change scenarios. These gaps pose challenges for the use of NBS for climate adaptation. Here, we value the flood protection benefits of stakeholder-identified marsh restoration under current and future climate change within San Francisco Bay, a densely urbanized estuary, and specifically on the shores of San Mateo County, the county most vulnerable to future flooding in California. Marsh restoration provides a present value of $21 million which increases to over $100 million with 0.5 m of sea level rise (SLR), and to about $500 million with 1 m of SLR. There are hotspots within the county where marsh restoration delivers very high benefits for adaptation, which reach $9 million/hectare with likely future sea level and storm conditions. Today's investments in nature and community resilience can result in increasing payoffs as climate change progresses and risk increases.

Identifiers

PMID38514760
PMCPMC10957971

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.