Toward Regenerative Coastal Seascapes: Integrating Blue Carbon, Restoration Ecology, and Spatial Planning Across Marine and Coastal Ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal and marine ecosystems mangroves, tidal marshes, seagrasses, oyster reefs, coral reefs, kelp forests and sandy shores are central to climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation and coastal protection, yet they are rapidly degrading under the combined pressures of climate change, sea-level rise, pollution and unsustainable development. Recent advances in blue carbon science, restoration ecology, seascape ecology and marine spatial planning (MSP) offer new opportunities to regenerate these systems and upscale restoration in line with global targets such as the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Building on earlier syntheses of coastal restoration and blue carbon, this review integrates recent literature spanning ecosystem-specific restoration experiments, decision-support tools, legal and governance innovations, and bibliometric analyses of blue carbon and sea-level rise research. We first summarise how ecological theory and empirical evidence have refined understanding of restoration feasibility, co-benefits and trade-offs across vegetated blue carbon ecosystems and biogenic reefs. We then examine emerging spatial planning and modelling tools, including Marxan based approaches, connectivity analyses, environmental niche and habitat suitability models, and multi-criteria GIS frameworks for identifying resilient restoration sites and prioritising interventions. A third theme explores the social, legal and governance dimensions of upscaling marine and coastal restoration, highlighting the roles of social data, participatory mapping, rights, tenure and risk allocation. Finally, we synthesise cross cutting knowledge gaps and propose a research agenda centred on system wide carbon accounting, social ecological integration, and climate-resilient restoration pathways. By consolidating multi-disciplinary evidence, this review aims to support more strategic, just and climate-smart restoration of coastal seascapes and to inform science, policy and practice at landscape and seascape scales. Keywords: Blue carbon restoration, Coastal and marine ecosystems, Marine spatial planning, Seascape ecology and connectivity, Climate change and sea-level rise, Ecosystem services and co-benefits, Nature-based coastal protection
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".