ASSESSING THE SUITABILITY OF NATURE-BASED CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TECNIQUES FOR COASTAL EROSION IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, CANADA. Erin Nelson, Dr. Danika van Proosdij Saint Mary’s University, BSc. Environmental Science Will Flanagan Heather Nelson George NelsonAcknowledgementsConclusion • Always conduct a site visit in the decision-making process • Ground truth various reference areas Figure 6. A) the site using the MCA in GIS is suitable and moderate; B) the ground truthing, shows the site would be impossible due to a rocky foreshore • Weight the criteria used in the MCA according to its sensitivity • Encourage governments, NGOs, other groups to prioritize education and workshops regarding NbSRecommendationsAbstract • PEI is the most at-risk province for coastal erosion(1) • Millions of dollars of infrastructure are at-risk • Shifting protection methods to NbS is needed. Figure 1. Operation time vs. space required for structures(2) Figure 2. Example A) hard engineered structure; B) nature-based solution (3) • Tidal wetlands are known to be a great location for living shorelines, which are a type of NbS (4,5) • A multi-criteria analysis (MCA) with differing NbS outputs was completed in ArcGIS Pro • Encouragement and education of these soft protection measures are criticalIntroduction • Data collection Table 1. Parameters measured during on-site visits Table 2. Parameters gathered through desktop • Assessment framework • Tool comparison • Modified index creation and output using MCAMethodologyResultsConclusions • PEI is suitable for hosting NbS • Wetlands account for nearly 60% of the suitable areas Figure 5. Example of a marsh where NbS can be implemented • MCA is limited by data availability and weighted criteria • Lack of encouragement and education hinders NbS implementation Figure 3. Suitable sections of shorelines within PEI. Primarily noted within bays and estuaries. Figure 4. Clustering of impossible site locations from field visits in top-left corner. Majority of other sites are moderately suitable. Table 3. Total values of outputs from the tool assessment framework for all four categories. All of the categories are equally weighted at 25%. Table 4. North Shore GIS (desktop and field) outputs for on-site locations compared with tool outputs from the two interactive tools that characterize PEI to the highest degree. Table 5. South Shore GIS (desktop and field) outputs for on-site locations compared with tool outputs from the two interactive tools that characterize PEI to the highest degree. Table 6. Suitability breakdown of the PEI coastline for NbS. All segments are moderately suitable unless they are determined to be impossible or inconclusive Table 7. Suitable shoreline area breakdown by shore types. A) B)References 1. Lemmen, D.S., Warren, F.J., James, T.S. and Mercer Clarke, C.S.L. editors (2016): Canada’s Marine Coasts in a Changing Climate; Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 274p.Lerman, S.B., Turner, V.K., Bang, C. (2012). Homeowner association as a vehicle for promoting native urban biodiversity. Ecology and Society 17(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05175-170445 2. Bridges, T. S., J. K. King, J. D. Simm, M. W. Beck, G. Collins, Q. Lodder, and R. K. Mohan, eds. 2021. International Guidelines on Natural and Nature-Based Features for Flood Risk Management. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Retrieved September 19th, 2021, from http://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/41946 3. Woods Hole Group, Inc. (2017). Living shorelines in New England: state of the practice. The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved March 6th, 2022, from https://www.northeastoceancouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Final_StateofthePractice_7.2017.pdf 4. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. (2018). Living on the shore: tidal wetlands. Retrieved October 7th, 2021, from https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Coastal-Resources/Living-on-the-Shore-Brochure/Tidal-Wetlands 5. Leonardi, N., Carnacina, I., Donatelli,