In the face of uncertainties around coastal management and climate change, coastal engineering interventions need to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Nature-based solutions and other non-traditional, integrated interventions are gaining traction. However, system-based views are not yet embedded into coastal management strategies. Moreover, the differences in coastal interventions, ranging from hard (‘grey’) to nature-based (‘green’) infrastructure remain understudied. In coastal management it is therefore challenging to work with the grey-green spectrum of interventions with clarity and focus, and to produce results that can be evaluated. The objective of this paper was to examine whether there is a common understanding of: the characteristics and differences between grey and green infrastructure, where interventions sit on this spectrum, and the resilience of grey versus green infrastructure. We conducted an integrative literature review of the grey-green spectrum of coastal infrastructure. We examined 105 coastal protection case studies and expanded the double-insurance framework to ensure an integrative approach, looking at both external and internal factors of resilience. Our review showed that external factors are typically used to characterise the grey-green spectrum. However, although useful, they do not facilitate a holistic comparison of alternative interventions. The additional consideration of internal factors (response diversity, multifunctionality, modularity and adaptive, participatory governance) bridges this gap. The review showed that dikes, reefs, saltmarshes, sand nourishment and dunes span a wider segment of the grey-green spectrum than they are generally categorised in. Furthermore, resilient solutions for adaptation are unlikely to be exclusively engineered or natural, but tend to be a mix of the two at different spatial scales (micro, meso, macro and mega). Our review therefore suggests that coastal planners benefit from a more diverse range of options when they consider the incorporation of grey and green interventions in the context of each spatial scale. We propose that internal resilience should be accounted for when infrastructure options are comparatively evaluated. This consideration brings attention to the ways in which the grey-hybrid-green spectrum of infrastructure enhances value for people.

@en

Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly addressed in urban planning and research to enhance urban sustainability and resilience through the provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). Yet, few applications exist of planning models for multifunctional GI in high spatial and thematic detail that simultaneously align with stakeholder interests. We address these gaps by developing and presenting a spatially explicit model to inform urban planners on priority areas for multifunctional GI development. This model was made possible by spatial analyses on multiple scales, enabling us to assess ES in sufficient detail, while simultaneously matching the preferences for scale and ES-indicators of decision makers and urban planners. The model involves a novel weighting scheme based upon the local capacity of GI to mitigate problems. We applied our model to the city of The Hague using a set of three policy-relevant problems: air pollution, the urban heat island effect and storm water flooding. Our results show that the capacity of GI to mitigate these problems varies spatially, both within and between ES, and depends on local characteristics of GI and the environmental context. We illustrate the relevance of using a multi-scale approach in spatial ES analysis, and underline that GI planning measures should be assessed in high spatial detail due to their often locally distinct ES capacity. Our approach makes important strides towards the deployment of nature-based solutions for urban challenges in the light of demands for increasing resilience and sustainability.

@en

Ecosystem services (ES) are increasingly embedded in policy agendas, but if and how policy actors are considering them is not often reported. This study assesses the extent to which ES were considered by key policy actors involved in the strategic decision-making process leading to an innovative large-scale Dutch coastal management project. We analysed retrospective interviews to ascertain which ES were considered and how they were described by policy actors. Over half of the quotes (118/228) and 16 out of the 17 interviewees referred to three broad ES categories, with high degrees of adoption: coastal safety, recreation and cognitive development (learning by doing). The broad terms ‘nature’ and ‘spatial quality’ were also referenced often (36 times). Our findings suggest that broad, unspecified ecosystem services were adopted highly by the policy actors, while specific ecosystem service categories were rarely considered. Relatable and comprehensible cultural ecosystem services also constituted critical arguments for policy actors in their strategic decision making. We reflect that ambiguous, broad terms can help to garner support and unite efforts across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. For ES to align with relevant aspects of decision making, a ‘translation step’ between ES research and decision making might be required and ambiguity should be acknowledged.@en