ArticleNature communications2024
Meta-analysis indicates better climate adaptation and mitigation performance of hybrid engineering-natural coastal defence measures.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multidimensional β-diversity responses to global change: a meta-analysis highlighting divergent effects on plant communities.Nature communications · 2025Pooled it
- How coastal resilience emerges.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Plant trait diversity buffers soil moisture dynamics on coastal dikes during drought periods.PloS one · 2026Article
- Differential Toxicity of Ionic Silver and Silver Nanoparticles: A Meta-Analysis of Ecotoxicological Studies.Toxics · 2025Article
- Shifting cyclone travel speed and its impact on global mangrove ecosystems.Science advances · 2025Article
- Are climate change adaptation strategies working? A call to expedite learning.Conservation science and practice · 2025Article
- Digital fabrication of Hybrid Nature-based Solutions as new opportunity for coastal climate change adaptation.Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional approaches to coastal defence often struggle to reduce the risks of accelerated climate change. Incorporating nature-based components into coastal defences may enhance adaptation to climate change with added benefits, but we need to compare their performance against conventional hard measures. We conduct a meta-analysis that compares the performances of hard, hybrid, soft and natural measures for coastal defence across different functions of risk reduction, climate change mitigation, and cost-effectiveness. Hybrid and soft measures offer higher risk reduction and climate change mitigation benefits than unvegetated natural systems, while performing on par with natural measures. Soft and hybrid measures are more cost-effective than hard measures, while hybrid measures provide the highest hazard reduction among all measures. All coastal defence measures have a positive economic return over a 20-year period. Mindful of risk context, our results provide strong an evidence-base for integrating and upscaling nature-based components into coastal defences in lower risk areas.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.