Study

Seascape architecture – incorporating ecological considerations in design of coastal and marine infrastructure

  • Published source details Perkol-Finkel S., Hadary T., Rella A., Shirazi R. & Sella I. (2018) Seascape architecture – incorporating ecological considerations in design of coastal and marine infrastructure. Ecological Engineering, 120, 645-654.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Use environmentally-sensitive material on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Use environmentally-sensitive material on subtidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures
  1. Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 on a subtidal seawall in a marina in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Perkol-Finkel et al. 2018) found that groove habitats and small ledges created on seawall panels, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material, supported higher macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and richness and different community composition compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces without added habitats. After 22 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity (data reported as Shannon index) and richness was higher on panels with added habitats (9 species/quadrat) than on seawall surfaces without (5/quadrat), and compared with seawall surfaces before habitats were added (1/quadrat). Community composition differed between panels with added habitats and seawall surfaces without (data reported as statistical model results). Two non-mobile invertebrate species groups recorded on panels were absent from surfaces without. It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating grooves and ledges, holes, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Groove habitats and small ledges were created on seawall panels (height: 1.5 m; width: 0.9 m; thickness: 130 mm) using a formliner. Each panel had multiple interlocking rectangular grooves and ledges (length: 50–150 mm; width/depth/height: 10–50 mm) amongst multiple holes. Panels were made from patented ECOncreteTM material. Four panels were attached to a vertical concrete seawall in November 2014. The bottom 1.2 m were subtidal. Seawall surfaces were subtidal areas of seawall cleared of organisms (height: 1.2 m; width: 0.9 m) adjacent to each panel. Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in one 300 × 300 mm randomly-placed quadrat on each panel and seawall surface over 22 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  2. Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 on a subtidal seawall in a marina in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Perkol-Finkel et al. 2018) found that hole habitats created on seawall panels, along with grooves, small ledges and environmentally-sensitive material, supported higher macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and richness and different community composition compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces without added habitats. After 22 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity (data reported as Shannon index) and richness was higher on panels with added habitats (9 species/quadrat) than on seawall surfaces without (5/quadrat), and compared with seawall surfaces before habitats were added (1/quadrat). Community composition differed between panels with added habitats and seawall surfaces without (data reported as statistical model results). Two non-mobile invertebrate species groups recorded on panels were absent from surfaces without. It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating holes, grooves, ledges, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Hole habitats were created on seawall panels (height: 1.5 m; width: 0.9 m; thickness: 130 mm) using a formliner. Each panel had six cylindrical holes (diameter: 30 mm; depth: 120 mm; ≥300 mm apart) amongst multiple grooves and small ledges. Panels were made from patented ECOncreteTM material. Four panels were attached to a vertical concrete seawall in November 2014. The bottom 1.2 m were subtidal. Panels were compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces cleared of organisms (height: 1.2 m; width: 0.9 m) adjacent to each panel. Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in one 300 × 300 mm randomly-placed quadrat on each panel and seawall surface over 22 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  3. Use environmentally-sensitive material on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 on an intertidal seawall in a marina in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Perkol-Finkel et al. 2018) found that seawall panels made from ECOncreteTM, along with grooves, small ledges and holes created on them, supported higher macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and richness and different community composition compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces without added habitats. After 22 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity (data reported as Shannon index) and richness was higher on ECOncreteTM panels with added habitats (8 species/quadrat) than on standard-concrete seawall surfaces without (3/quadrat), and compared with seawall surfaces before panels were attached (2/quadrat). Community composition differed between ECOncreteTM panels and standard-concrete surfaces (data reported as statistical model results). Five species groups (1 macroalgae, 4 non-mobile invertebrates) recorded on panels were absent from standard-concrete surfaces. It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of using environmentally-sensitive material or creating grooves, ledges and/or holes. Seawall panels (height: 1.5 m; width: 0.9 m; thickness: 130 mm) were made from patented ECOncreteTM material using a formliner. Panels had multiple grooves, small ledges and holes. Four panels were attached to a vertical concrete seawall in November 2014. The top 0.3 m were intertidal. Panels were compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces cleared of organisms (height: 0.3 m; width: 0.9 m) adjacent to each panel. Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in one 300 × 300 mm randomly-placed quadrat on each panel and seawall surface during high tide over 22 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  4. Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 on an intertidal seawall in a marina in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Perkol-Finkel et al. 2018) found that hole habitats created on seawall panels, along with grooves, small ledges and environmentally-sensitive material, supported higher macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and richness and different community composition compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces without added habitats. After 22 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity (data reported as Shannon index) and richness was higher on panels with added habitats (8 species/quadrat) than on seawall surfaces without (3/quadrat), and compared with seawall surfaces before habitats were added (2/quadrat). Community composition differed between panels with added habitats and seawall surfaces without (data reported as statistical model results). Five species groups (1 macroalgae, 4 non-mobile invertebrates) recorded on panels were absent from surfaces without. It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating holes, grooves, ledges, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Hole habitats were created on seawall panels (height: 1.5 m; width: 0.9 m; thickness: 130 mm) using a formliner. Each panel had six cylindrical holes (diameter: 30 mm; depth: 120 mm; ≥300 mm apart) amongst multiple grooves and small ledges. Panels were made from patented ECOncreteTM material. Four panels were attached to a vertical concrete seawall in November 2014. The top 0.3 m were intertidal. Seawall surfaces were intertidal areas of seawall cleared of organisms (height: 0.3 m; width: 0.9 m) adjacent to each panel. Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in one 300 × 300 mm randomly-placed quadrat on each panel and seawall surface during high tide over 22 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  5. Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 on an intertidal seawall in a marina in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Perkol-Finkel et al. 2018) found that groove habitats and small ledges created on seawall panels, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material, supported higher macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and richness and different community composition compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces without added habitats. After 22 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity (data reported as Shannon index) and richness was higher on panels with added habitats (8 species/quadrat) than on seawall surfaces without (3/quadrat), and compared with seawall surfaces before habitats were added (2/quadrat). Community composition differed between panels with added habitats and seawall surfaces without (data reported as statistical model results). Five species groups (1 macroalgae, 4 non-mobile invertebrates) recorded on panels were absent from surfaces without. It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating grooves and ledges, holes, or using environmentally-sensitive material. Groove habitats and small ledges were created on seawall panels (height: 1.5 m; width: 0.9 m; thickness: 130 mm) using a formliner. Each panel had multiple interlocking grooves and ledges (length: 50–150 mm; width/depth/height: 10–50 mm) amongst multiple holes. Panels were made from patented ECOncreteTM material. Four panels were attached to a vertical concrete seawall in November 2014. The top 0.3 m were intertidal. Panels were compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces cleared of organisms (height: 0.3 m; width: 0.9 m) adjacent to each panel. Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in one 300 × 300 mm randomly-placed quadrat on each panel and seawall surface during high tide over 22 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  6. Use environmentally-sensitive material on subtidal artificial structures

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 on a subtidal seawall in a marina in the Mediterranean Sea, Israel (Perkol-Finkel et al. 2018) found that seawall panels made from ECOncreteTM, along with grooves, small ledges and holes created on them, supported higher macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and richness and different community composition compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces without added habitats. After 22 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity (data reported as Shannon index) and richness was higher on ECOncreteTM panels with added habitats (9 species/quadrat) than on standard-concrete seawall surfaces without (5/quadrat), and compared with seawall surfaces before panels were attached (1/quadrat). Community composition differed between ECOncreteTM panels and standard-concrete surfaces (data reported as statistical model results). Two non-mobile invertebrate species groups recorded on panels were absent from standard-concrete surfaces. It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of using environmentally-sensitive material or creating grooves, ledges and/or holes. Seawall panels (height: 1.5 m; width: 0.9 m; thickness: 130 mm) were made from patented ECOncreteTM material using a formliner. Panels had multiple grooves, small ledges and holes. Four panels were attached to a vertical concrete seawall in November 2014. The bottom 1.2 m were subtidal. Panels were compared with standard-concrete seawall surfaces cleared of organisms (height: 1.2 m; width: 0.9 m) adjacent to each panel. Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in one 300 × 300 mm randomly-placed quadrat on each panel and seawall surface during high tide over 22 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust