As offshore wind farms and other marine infrastructure rapidly expand, “nature-inclusive design" (NID) is increasingly promoted as a way to support biodiversity and restore ecosystems. But according to the latest Editor's Choice in ICES Journal of Marine Science, not all nature-inclusive interventions are equally beneficial — and some may risk further artificializing marine ecosystems instead of restoring them.
Nature-inclusive design generally refers to intentionally incorporating ecological features into marine infrastructure, such as offshore wind farms, harbour walls, or scour protection layers, to create habitat for marine life. Examples include restoring oyster reefs, adding habitat complexity to turbine foundations, or constructing artificial reef structures.
The authors argue that the term “nature-inclusive design" is currently used too broadly and can cover fundamentally different ecological approaches. To address this, the paper proposes a new “trichotomy" framework distinguishing between three types of NID.
The first category, restorative NID, focuses on restoring ecological values or habitats that historically existed in an area, such as reintroducing oysters where oyster reefs once occurred naturally. According to the authors, this type of intervention can generally be actively promoted because it supports the recovery of lost ecosystem functions.
The second category, creative NID through optimized infrastructure, aims to enhance biodiversity beyond natural conditions within the footprint of existing infrastructure. Examples include adding larger rocks, pipes, or “cod hotels" to offshore wind turbine foundations to create additional habitat complexity. While these measures may provide ecological benefits, the authors stress that they require careful evaluation and clearly defined goals.
The third category, creative NID through add-on structures, raises the greatest concerns. These interventions introduce additional artificial structures beyond the infrastructure footprint itself, potentially replacing natural habitats with artificial ones. The study argues that such approaches should only be pursued when the ecological benefits clearly outweigh the risks associated with increased anthropogenic modification of the marine environment.
Importantly, the paper also challenges the common assumption that “more species" automatically means healthier ecosystems. The authors argue that biodiversity enhancement should focus less on species counts alone and more on ecological functions such as nursery habitat, shelter, nutrient cycling, trophic interactions, and spawning processes.
The study further warns that some nature-inclusive designs risk becoming forms of greenwashing if ecological goals are poorly defined or insufficiently monitored. The authors therefore call for measurable objectives, long-term monitoring, climate-smart planning, and transparent communication about both the benefits and trade-offs of different NID approaches.
As marine infrastructure continues expanding worldwide, the paper highlights the importance of asking not only whether infrastructure can support biodiversity — but also what kind of ecological outcomes society wants to achieve, and at what cost.
Read the full paper, Rethinking the responsible application of nature-inclusive design in marine infrastructure to restore ecosystems and enhance biodiversity, in ICES Journal of Marine Science.
