Ideas

Bringing Nature into the Engineer’s Toolbox

June 17, 2015

Follow Jen
Restored tidal marsh in the Conservancy’s Port Susan Bay Preserve in Washington protects farmlands from floods. Photo: Jennifer Molnar/TNC

Mention engineering to a typical conservationist, and thoughts turn to concrete. And lots of it.

Certain images come to mind: Big dams. Levees that strait-jacket rivers. Hardened coastlines.

Even when these projects help communities, there are often consequences for natural systems. The dams interrupt fish runs. Seawalls hold back sediment, starving beaches of sand.

This, of course, has not gone unnoticed by the conservation community.

But perhaps these thoughts are a bit unfair. We enjoy the benefits of dams and infrastructure projects, after all. And engineers have often developed solutions that have improved resource management. Think fish ladders.

Now, many engineers are going beyond that. They do not see nature as something to control, or even something they have to take into account as they design a project. No. They see opportunity: They see that nature and ecosystems can be part of the solution.

Marshes absorbing floodwaters. Mangroves and reefs protecting coastal communities. Trees cleaning our air.

They are increasingly seeing that these new nature-based solutions – whether on their own or in combination with others – can meet community needs, while often being more resilient than built solutions to changes like sea level rise and climate change.

Now the conservation community is wisely working directly with engineers – not just to reduce their impacts, but to jointly find solutions for both people and nature.

The Conservancy is partnering with engineering firms like CH2M HILL to build nature into post-Sandy coastal resilience plans in New York City. And providing protection of communities along the Gulf of Mexico with oyster reefs.

I think this is an exciting advance – working together to bring nature into the engineer’s toolbox.

But as with any cross-cultural collaboration, I’ve also seen challenges arise as conservation scientists work with engineers.

Scientists are driven to discover how the world works. They are comfortable with – and often relish – ambiguity and investigating the unknown.

Engineers use knowledge to solve problems and deliver new products and solutions. They seek to create innovative solutions by building on a base of established evidence.

Bringing these disciplines together can result in misunderstandings; things get lost in translation.

Full disclosure here: while I’ve been a conservation scientist for over a dozen years at the Conservancy, I began my career as an environmental engineer cleaning up pollution. A foot in each camp, so to speak.

I have seen the challenges, and can understand each perspective. But I also see huge opportunities if we can bring these disciplines together.

Evidence Base for Nature-based Solutions

“Engineers are too risk averse.”

I’ve heard that from our scientists working to incorporate nature in engineers’ designs.

But it is natural for engineers to need to know how likely it is that a solution will fail.

They are going to ask how likely it is that a marsh will reduce a storm’s surge, just like they would ask how tall a levee or seawall needs to be to hold it back. They don’t deal in abstractions, because abstractions aren’t going to protect a community from flooding. They want – if you’ll pardon the pun – concrete answers.

Engineers are used to drawing on an established body of evidence and well-tested solutions. The need for this is reinforced by the personal liability that licensed professional engineers take on when they stamp designs as approved.

It is not that they don’t want any risk, but they want to plan for a known likelihood of failure. A levee might be tall enough if it can withstand a category 3 hurricane, based on local conditions and acceptance of risk.

But ecosystems don’t come with specifications or technical standards for how they will perform.

Conservation scientists need to learn to translate the roles that ecosystems play into terms that an engineer can use.

One challenge in doing this is ecosystems are heterogeneous and performance can depend on local conditions. A marsh is a living ecosystem that isn’t going to perform as uniformly as a concrete wall in the face of a flood.

So nature-based solutions may have wider ranges of risk and performance. But their heterogeneity can also add to their resilience to change – and a living marsh can adapt to rising sea levels.

We need to continue testing the role ecosystems can play, working with engineers to increase both the evidence-base of their performance and engineers’ comfort in using these new kinds of solutions.

Collaborating to Scale Up Solutions

There are examples of well-tested nature-based solutions, like bioswales for managing stormwater and marshes for treating wastewater.

To add more to this suite of options, conservation scientists can collaborate with engineers to design research that can lead to the data and evidence needed.

This often starts with pilot analyses in specific places. For example, a case study by Conservancy scientists and Dow engineers showed that forests could be an economically-viable solution to reduce air pollution in Texas.

Then we need to understand how nature can play a role more broadly. We need to move from ‘proof of concept’ pilot tests towards developing technical standards for how ecosystems can offer solutions. We need to build that evidence base that engineers can draw from for their designs.

Conservancy scientists are doing this with cross-sectoral partners in a SNAP working group collecting evidence for how coastal ecosystems reduce risk for communities around the world.

TNC staff work together with CH2M HILL partners to build five oyster reef structures at Arlington Cove in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Photo: Erika Nortemann/TNC
TNC staff work together with CH2M HILL partners to build five oyster reef structures at Arlington Cove in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Photo: Erika Nortemann/TNC

Bridging World-Views

“I’m looking forward to seeing the world through the Conservancy’s glasses.”

I was struck by this statement by a partner at an engineering company after a productive meeting about bringing ecosystems into her team’s water scenario planning.

The Conservancy is beginning to hire engineers to help navigate this science/engineering divide – but this statement shows that isn’t the only solution.

We can also better succeed when we can start to see the world through the other’s glasses. Being open to each other’s perspectives, while also being aware of our own biases.

There are big opportunities if we can collaborate effectively across these disciplines.

By showing how nature provides solutions for society, we can increase investment in it – to better sustain both wildlife and our communities.

Jen Molnar

Jen provides thought leadership on improving society’s ability to create a more sustainable future for nature and people, including through corporate practices and policy. She also provides strategic leadership on new scientific partnerships with universities and research institutions to bring new disciplines and expertise to the Conservancy’s strategies. More from Jen

Follow Jen

Join the Discussion

Please note that all comments are moderated and may take some time to appear.

4 comments

  1. […] Bringing nature into the engineer's toolbox:  “Mention engineering to a typical conservationist, and thoughts turn to concrete. And lots of it.  Certain images come to mind: Big dams. Levees that strait-jacket rivers. Hardened coastlines.  Even when these projects help communities, there are often consequences for natural systems. The dams interrupt fish runs. Seawalls hold back sediment that starve beaches of sand.  This, of course, has not gone unnoticed by the conservation community.  But perhaps these thoughts are a bit unfair. We enjoy the benefits of dams and infrastructure projects, after all. And engineers have often developed solutions that have improved resource management. Think fish ladders.  Now, many engineers are going beyond that. … ”    Read more from the Cool Green Science blog here:  Bringing nature into the engineer’s toolbox […]

  2. This is great
    BUT
    Trying to bring an idea to the fore is impossible.
    I have developed a system of converting CO2 emissions to clean air at zero running cost. Will anybody listen or try it, NO,it does not have a proven track record. THAT’S BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THE BA.LLS TO TRY IT.

  3. I found this article while searching for a way to blend my engineering skills with my conservationist heart. I have been practicing civil engineering for 7 years now, and I am seriously doubting my choice in career. Every time I see a proposal for a new development, I find myself thinking “What a about the plants and animals that will be displaced by this development? Where will the animals go? How many homes will be destroyed? Will this development destroy an animal pathway and force them to either have a smaller territory or risk being hit by a car on a busy road to keep their current territory?” These are the thoughts that make me want to completely drop engineering altogether.

    When I was an intern, my boss said his goal was to pave the world. That was the minute I started to doubt my decisions to become an engineer. I don’t want to pave the world. I want a world where people can live along side nature and not think of it as an area to be conquered. I want a world where green doesn’t mean monetary profit but it means trees and natural streams where both people and animals can enjoy the gifts that earth has to offer.

    Thank you for writing this article. I agree that engineers need to and can incorporate nature into their designs; however, most don’t because of the risk involved. I will continue my quest to blend my engineering background with my conservationist heart. Hopefully, I will succeed. And hopefully other engineers will be likeminded and succeed as well. Here’s to a partnership in hope for the future!