ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing nature-based coastal defense.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing barriers to ecosystem-based adaptation: Application to tropical islands.Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures · 2026Article
- 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
Abstract
Nature-based Coastal Defense is increasingly used to reduce climate risk, because considered effective, inexpensive and cost-effective, easy to implement, and no-regrets. This article discusses this positive framing through the analysis of 23 projects implemented in French overseas territories, using an ex-post expert judgment method considering enabling conditions (context, governance, funding, social acceptability), risk reduction (technical effectiveness; studies, monitoring and evaluation) and externalities (co-benefits and disbenefits; contribution to adaptation). 80% of projects aimed at reducing coastal erosion; 47.8% were implemented in natural or rural areas; 87.1% included restoration; 82.6% targeted one single ecosystem and 51.7% beach/dune systems; 47.8% were led by public actors; all relied on multiple funding sources. Performance indices range from 39.4 to 77.2%. The highest scores concern governance and social acceptability, and the lowest scores risk reduction. No project included an evaluation of risk reduction and was calibrated for future risk. Internal (i.e. project related) and external (more general) levers and barriers to effectiveness were identified. Internal barriers include the lack of political support to nature-based options, the difficulty to secure the required long-term funding and to upscale action in the face of strong land tenure constraints.
Indexed as
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.