Pamela A. Mason , Donna Marie Bilkovic , Amanda G. Guthrie , Karinna Nunez , Shana Jones , Chris Boyd
{"title":"Encouraging living shorelines in the United States- A review of state definitions and policies","authors":"Pamela A. Mason , Donna Marie Bilkovic , Amanda G. Guthrie , Karinna Nunez , Shana Jones , Chris Boyd","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The implementation of living shorelines for shoreline management is influenced by many sectors including landowners, managers, non-governmental organizations, and funders, but with proprietary interest over state waters and lands, state policies arguably have the greatest impact in the US. This study reviews coastal states definitions for “living shoreline” and established public policies for their implementation. Of the 21 states reviewed, 20 had definitions. These definitions, though diverse, shared many common terms including protection, erosion and nature, converging on the concept that a living shoreline’s primary purpose is to use nature to address shoreline erosion, which further aligns with national level definitions. Secondary outcomes described in the LS definitions include vegetation, habitat, restoration and maintenance of coastal processes. Most definitions are not incorporated into state legal provisions (N = 13). States' LS policies were categorized as: non-regulatory (N = 6), regulatory preferred (N = 11) and regulatory required (N = 4). Five case studies highlight the extent of policy approaches being employed. The lack of robust LS tracking along with federal, environmental non-profits and academia engagement, confounds establishing a primary causative agent for LS implementation. However, there is evidence that a regulatory pathway will enhance implementation. The sparse LS implementation data highlights the need for improved tracking of LS implementation. This information could serve as common ground to move towards policy coherence between levels of governance to align policies on a set of shared outcomes, as well as inform policy development to encourage LS approaches within and outside the US.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 106973"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25003896","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The implementation of living shorelines for shoreline management is influenced by many sectors including landowners, managers, non-governmental organizations, and funders, but with proprietary interest over state waters and lands, state policies arguably have the greatest impact in the US. This study reviews coastal states definitions for “living shoreline” and established public policies for their implementation. Of the 21 states reviewed, 20 had definitions. These definitions, though diverse, shared many common terms including protection, erosion and nature, converging on the concept that a living shoreline’s primary purpose is to use nature to address shoreline erosion, which further aligns with national level definitions. Secondary outcomes described in the LS definitions include vegetation, habitat, restoration and maintenance of coastal processes. Most definitions are not incorporated into state legal provisions (N = 13). States' LS policies were categorized as: non-regulatory (N = 6), regulatory preferred (N = 11) and regulatory required (N = 4). Five case studies highlight the extent of policy approaches being employed. The lack of robust LS tracking along with federal, environmental non-profits and academia engagement, confounds establishing a primary causative agent for LS implementation. However, there is evidence that a regulatory pathway will enhance implementation. The sparse LS implementation data highlights the need for improved tracking of LS implementation. This information could serve as common ground to move towards policy coherence between levels of governance to align policies on a set of shared outcomes, as well as inform policy development to encourage LS approaches within and outside the US.
期刊介绍:
Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.