As sea levels rise and the frequency of flooding events increases, so do efforts to stabilize coastal shorelines. Nature‐based solutions to shoreline stabilization (“green” solutions, as opposed to traditional “grey” shoreline hardening) have been increasingly adopted in the Gulf of Mexico and mid‐Atlantic regions of the United States, but they are only beginning to be implemented, documented, and understood in the northeastern United States. This case study contrasts two shoreline stabilization projects directly across from each other on the banks of the Mystic River, Boston Harbor, MA. These two projects, one private and one public, employ a spectrum of green‐grey shoreline stabilization techniques. Originally planned as traditional grey shoreline stabilizations, both projects shifted toward greener solutions due to local environmental group advocacy, highlighting the influence of outside groups as advocates for nature‐based solutions. This study documents the evolution of both projects, highlighting common challenges in permitting and vegetation maintenance, as well as critical differences in project goals, funding sources, and biodiversity impacts.
Conservation practice insights from a comparative case study of two shoreline stabilization projects in Boston Harbor, MA