Nature-inclusive design (NID) of marine infrastructure refers to the creation of optimized artificial habitat to locally enhance biodiversity. In essence, NID comprises the local addition of something non-natural to infrastructure with the aim of providing habitat for biodiversity assets in its widest sense. In its purest sense, NID is inspired by how the local environment would be without the infrastructure being present. However, NIDs of marine infrastructure often comprise actions that promote biodiversity which does or did not naturally occur at that location.
In this presentation, we review existing definitions of NID and introduce the perspective of the ULTFARMS project consortium (Degraer et al., 2026). We propose a clear distinction between three different types of NID: (1) restorative NID, linked to the restoration of lost local ecosystem values, and (2) creative NID, referring to artificially created ecosystem assets and containing either (2a) optimized infrastructure or (2b) add-on structures. Restorative NID refers to measures which facilitate and speed-up nature restoration, while creative NID refers to measures to boost biodiversity "beyond the natural".
Beyond the importance of distinguishing different types of NID, it is important to also reflect on which biodiversity assets we elect to boost. We argue that NID should move beyond a focus on species richness towards supporting functional ecosystem assets, which also provide better options for climate-proof NID designs. To adopt NID in an offshore renewables context, it is imperative to hold our horses and carefully consider what is the target to be achieved and how to get there. Moreover, we highlight that NID interventions carry potential negative impacts such as natural habitat loss, the spread of non-indigenous species and unintended shifts in the food web, with the latter issue being strongly scale-dependent. These risks need to be weighed against the expected ecological benefits. Applying NID in offshore renewable energy therefore requires clear goals, careful selection of the ecological assets that we aim to promote and consideration of potential trade-offs.
In summary, restorative NID can be actively promoted, whereas creative NID requires more careful reflection; NID preferably prioritizes functional ecosystem assets and explicitly considers which ecological values to promote and why.
Acknowledgment
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 101093888. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
References
Degraer S., Cornacchia L., Ziemba A., Agardy T., van den BurgS. W.K., van de Braak K., van Duren L.A., DeclercqA., EggermontM., Van Gerven A., Kerkhove T.R.H., MoulaertI., PatelT., Kjerulf PetersenJ., PoelmanM., Stratigaki V., Strothotte E., VanaverbekeJ., El Serafy G. (2026). Rethinking the responsible application of nature-inclusive design in marine infrastructure to restore ecosystems and enhance biodiversity. ICES Journal of Marine Science (in press).