3.4.1 Coastal Ecosystem Restoration
Protection and preservation of coastal regions were traditionally meant to safeguard against flooding. However, incomplete knowledge about the state of the system with this traditional approach often impacted the local ecology negatively and caused unpredicted outcomes that eventually affected the ecosystem more significantly. Incorporating ecological services into coastal ecosystem protection and restoration, due to the need for novel, cost‐effective, sustainable designs for solving problems like rising sea levels due to climate change and minimizing the anthropogenic impacts on these ecosystems, has attracted the attention of many researchers [13].
To fulfill the objectives of coastal ecology restoration, the methods used should be selected based on the paradigm of a few species (such as mussel beds, oyster beds, and vegetation) that can participate in the enhancements with their ability to modify/save the physical structure of the environment; the construction of dams or dikes also enhances ecosystem' biodiversity. In addition, the unique ability of these species to trap and stabilize sediments in intertidal areas leads to soil elevation and attenuation of tides; they are also suitable for construction of low‐cost, sustainable dams. For example, marram grass (Ammophilaarenaria) can trap sand, hence building protective sand dunes that invigorate dikes in sandy coastal regions. Dams or dikes constructed with reef‐forming shellfish species, coral reefs, wetlands, or mangrove forests are self‐sustaining and require low maintenance, minimum reinforcement, and less financial assistance.
Complex engineering designs often find it impossible to incorporate ecosystem engineering species into a system's local demographic conditions. In such cases, traditional designs can be revised to enhance inhabitability by simply modifying ecological structures with better ecological values for coastal protection purposes. This may not result in a cost‐effective approach, but mitigation of engineering impacts on ecology is definitely realized with acceptance from the local community.
The primary goal of coastal protection is to protect the land from seasonal floods and erosion of shorelines. An occasional or annual flood threatens a large geographic scale with mostly temporary damage, while the erosion of shorelines is very site‐specific and has a greater impact on the entire coastline [61]. Groyns and revetments are traditional protective measures that minimize the threats of shoreline erosion; dams are constructed to prevent floods and protect the mainland on a larger scale, whereas breakwaters are effective against both floods and erosion on a smaller scale. A comprehensive and integrated assessment and evaluation of the coastal ecosystem for management, maintenance, stabilization, and protection has become the primary focus of recent researchers seeking to develop innovative methodologies [51]. Weight of evidence (WOE) [1], ecological risk assessment (ERA) [9], and the ecosystem services approach (ESA) [57] are among several well‐designed assessment models that emphasize pollution rather than the validation of ecosystem integrity; a few integrative approaches primarily focus on the assessment of ecosystem health. Nevertheless, an integrated ecosystem health assessment approach (IEHA) in combination with ecological indexes results in better evaluation of community structures at a macro level as well as biodiversity measures of ecological systems [14, 29].
According to a report by Brown and McLachlan [7], more than 80% of sedimentary shorelines are lost due to construction of artificial structures in coastal areas. With the replacement of coastal marshes by brick walls, benthos are immensely effected on either side of the wall [47], although the exact cause for the adverse effects on adjacent habitats is difficult to pinpoint. As an example, natural rocky shores of Sydney Harbor are affected by the disintegration of the shore due to the infrastructure of intertidal seawalls and urbanization [20]. A case study by Burt and Bartholomew [8]discussed coastal development and modification in the Arabian Gulf by encouraging colonization of fish and corals to enhance ecological benefits, integrity, and sustainability of modern urban development. Similarly, a case study in the Jiangsu coastal area of China based on a dimensionless polygon area method reflected the structure, health, and function of an ecosystem that greatly depends on temporal5 and spatial6 changes. The results of this assessment may be applicable for policy makers as a reference for the planning and development of coastal areas [52].
3.4.2 Mangrove Restoration
Mangrove forests are integral parts of coastal ecosystems of ecological importance; 69 species of plants are referred to as mangroves. Mangroves cover 146 530 km of the world's tropical shorelines [16]. Reports witnessed a significant decline in the area of mangroves from 198 000 km in 1980 to 157 630 km in 1990, and it continues to decrease at a noticeable rate [16]. This loss is taking place primarily in countries like the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the US (Florida and Puerto Rico)[24]. A large re forestation program for the restoration of anthropogenic degradation caused to mangrove forests by planting Sonneratia Apetala species over an area of 1600 km2 on the accreted muddy shores of Bangladesh was successfully implemented with the aim of providing sufficiently raised land for accretion of sediments to support agriculture and vegetation. It has been estimated that about 800 km2 of land has been recovered as a result of these plantings after a loss of almost 50% caused by cyclones and insect outbreaks [4]. However, several similar attempts have failed to restore the mangroves in other countries. Nevertheless, a thorough study of the habitants and meticulous projection of ecological engineering projects will lead to successful restoration of mangroves, ensuring the coexistence of modern civilization with Nature.
Mangroves are intertidal forests along the shorelines of tropical regions, submerged under seawater most of the time and physiologically adaptable to saline water. The trees have special adaptations in their roots that let them survive in soft muddy soil and transport oxygen from the atmosphere to their roots in anaerobic conditions. Reproduction is supported by the unique nature of their seeds, which can float on water and are transported to other sites.
Mangrove forests naturally stabilize shorelines by reducing tidal currents and wind energy hitting the shore. They provide food and shelter to the coastal fish and shellfish colonies; habitat for various species of sea birds as well as wading birds; and timber, medical products, and useful chemicals (Figure 3.2). In spite of being home to a wide range of flora and fauna, mangroves are often considered worthless swamps and have been destroyed by hydrological impacts over the years. A major reason for mangrove die‐backs is annual hypersalinity variations caused by rainwater and freshwater flow. Although mangrove forests are known to undergo self‐repairing or secondary succession every 15–30 years; they can perform this self‐sustenance only if the tidal hydrology is not disturbed and the flow of floating seeds is not interrupted.
The need to restore mangroves was only been realized toward the end of the twentieth century. Traditional ecological restoration of these forests initially aimed at rehabilitation or management of natural resources such as planting timber‐producing trees. However, this approach is not the same as an ecological restoration process. For ecological restoration of mangrove forests, several aspects must be taken into consideration: a cohesive ecosystem, alternate stable state of the ecosystem, and development of a new ecosystem once the ecological threshold is crossed. Although a complete restoration of mangroves may not be practically viable, the objective is to minimize the difference between the undisturbed (may be naturally disturbed) and restored states of the ecosystem that correlate to the principle of [3, 48]. Common manipulation