geology, James Hutton's Theory of the Earth, is arguably the geological equivalent to Darwin's, and can be reduced to natural geological processes shaping our physical surroundings over time and at different spatiotemporal scales (Hutton, 1795). The two theories stem from historically separate fields, but have overarching similarities-gradual change over time can shape or reshape a system, biotically and abiotically, respectively. In some study areas, geology and biology naturally overlap because a holistic approach is needed to fully understand the topicthis is seen in biogeomorphic processes (Viles, 2020).Natural and Nature-Based Feature (NNBF) research sits at this biology-geology intersection while spanning additional fields like engineering and environmental sciences, with applied political and conservation implications. Natural features develop over time through physical, biological, and chemical processes, whereas nature-based features are designed and constructed to function like natural systems. Together, the term NNBF refers to landscape features that use, or mimic, natural processes to provide societal benefits, particularly by reducing hazard risk (Seddon et al., 2021). NNBF are also referred to as Nature-based Solutions (NBS/NbS), Engineering With Nature (EWN), and Green Infrastructure where the variability in terminology can in part be attributed to the variety of fields that research or apply NNBF (Seddon et al., 2021). While NNBF outcomes depend on the complexity of biogeomorphic interactions and our understanding of them, the use of biological and physical features to achieve desired benefits is not new; some techniques have been used over millennia, where one of the earliest formalized Western frameworks aligned with NNBF principles is IanMcHarg's Design with Nature (1969). Although NNBF practices are not new, research on underlying biogeomorphic processes remains fairly nascent, and applied knowledge is largely based on case-specific experience and anecdotes, limiting generalizability (Stive et al., 2013;Harman et al., 2015;Schoones et al., 2019;Viles, 2020).Desired outcomes of NNBFs incorporate resilience and co-benefits extending beyond both their initial implementation and their application site. These include reduced infrastructure replacement costs, improved ecosystem health (Duarte et al., 2013), increased biodiversity (Seddon et al., 2021), and benefits to human well-being (e.g., mental and physical health, community connectivity). Impactful NNBF projects are defined by their ability to contribute to cumulative landscape-scale benefits (Tritinger et al. 2025). By providing risk reduction, ecological enhancement, and societal value, NNBFs offer a holistic alternative to conventionally accepted development, infrastructure, and hazard response approaches. Recent decades have seen NNBFs emerge as preferred coastal management options in many settings, paralleled by a significant rise in dedicated research (Schoonees et al., 2019).In coastal settings, NNBFs have been used to reduce hazards related to sun, wind, and water. Coastal areas are governed by geologic and hydrologic dynamics and many coastal NNBF provide flood risk management (FRM), which encompasses techniques aimed at minimizing current and future impacts to people and property from flooding and erosion in coastal and fluvial systems (Bridges et al., 2021). Coastal NNBF techniques include, but are not limited to, beach nourishment, thin layer placement (also referred to as sediment augmentation), and living and hybrid shoreline creation. NNBF projects have been applied in a variety of coastal habitats both on land (e.g., beaches, dunes, wetlands, coastal forests) and offshore (e.g., reefs, seagrass beds, benthic environments) in natural and in human altered settings. In the United States (U.S.), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for many largescale NNBF projects where beach nourishment is the most longstanding U.S. NNBF practice (Pilkey Bridges et al., 2021Bridges et al., advancing their application and conservation requires a systems-level understanding of coastal habitat structure, function, and resilience (Bridges et al., 2021(Bridges et al., , 2022)).Over recent decades, NNBF research has increasingly informed project design and performance evaluation across extended timescales and more complex, real-world conditions (e.g., King et al., 2021). Despite these advances, key ecological and geological processes-particularly ecogeomorphic relationships that underpin the adaptive capacity of coastal habitats -remain insufficiently understood (Corenblit et al., 2015). Similarly, practitioners now recognize that successful NNBF projects require stakeholder support (Seddon et al., 2021) In conclusion, this research topic underscores the contributions of USCRP and USACE EWN research investments into advancing coastal NNBF fundamental theory, application, and adaptation. It is clear that the rapid growth of NNBF research has advanced the state of coastal science and strengthened the alignment between engineering practice, ecosystem processes, and public benefit. Broadly, contributing researchers advocated a critical realized need for stakeholder inclusion at all stages of NNBF research and application while showcasing the interdisciplinary and holistic approaches required to monitor and evaluate NNBF and surrounding ecosystems. It is critical that we work to better understand biogeomorphic coastal systems. As coastal vulnerability to climate change intensifies (IPCC, 2022), our international repertoire of responsible NNBF-based management, design, and adaptation solutions must expand to prepare future scenarios (Morris et al., 2020).
Charbonneau et al. (Thu,) studied this question.