This brief report explores the technological and technical dimensions of coastal rewilding, emphasizing the historical, cultural, and technical factors shaping coastal intertidal environments. Technology is defined not only as applied scientific knowledge but also as a sociotechnical system embedded in cultural and management contexts. Historically, European coastlines have been transformed through extensive engineering – such as dike construction, drainage, and land reclamation – illustrating how technology shaped intertidal ecosystems mostly from the 16th and 17th centuries until nowadays. Examples like Dutch hydraulic engineering and Acadian polderization in Nova Scotia demonstrate transnational knowledge transfer. Coastal rewilding, considered as the reverse of reclamation, represents a new technological and ecological paradigm, ranging from passive recovery, trophic rewilding to active rewilding strongly embedded with managed realignment. These approaches differ in technical intensity, from low-tech natural regeneration to highly engineered restoration. Nevertheless, all kind of practices face site-dependent challenges related to erosion, sediment dynamics, and legacy infrastructures. Coastal rewilding thus embodies both technological and socio-ecological experimentation, seeking to balance human intervention with natural processes. Such rewilding practices and projects must often address the “coastal squeeze,” a climate-induced constraint on habitat migration caused by sea defenses and shoreline artificialization, underscoring the intertwined histories of technology, ecology, and adaptation. This report will thus examine the relationship between coastal rewilding and managed realignment as complementary strategies for reducing shoreline artificialization and adapting to climate change. Managed realignment – defined as the deliberate repositioning or removal of coastal defenses – has evolved since the 1980s into a key soft-engineering and nature-based solution across Europe. Although terminology and objectives vary by country, it generally aims to restore intertidal habitats, enhance flood resilience, and compensate for historical habitat loss. The RECOSEA database identifies 277 European projects illustrating a wide spectrum of technical interventions, from controlled tidal exchange and partial dike breaching to complete defense removal and inland retreat (Andreu-Boussut and Chadenas, 2025). These practices collectively represent gradients of active coastal rewilding, encompassing both technical and ecological complexity. While over 60,000 hectares of intertidal habitats have been restored for the eight investigated European countries, this remains marginal compared to past reclamation losses. Remaining challenges concern balancing habitat restoration with freshwater wetland preservation, ensuring social acceptability, and integrating diverse conservation, engineering, and adaptation objectives in various and heterogeneous European contexts. This section of the report has been extensively published beyond the only technical aspects in de la Vega-Leinert et al. (2025, in press) The final section applies the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework to assess the maturity of coastal rewilding practices across REWRITE’s eight European Demonstrator Sites. Adapted from the EU Horizon scale, the TRL approach measures progress from conceptual development (TRL 1–3) to operational implementation and scaling-up (TRL 7–9). Coastal rewilding maturity depends on the extent of scientific understanding, the number and scale of demonstration projects, and institutional recognition of benefits associated to such practices. The analysis reveals varying readiness levels: high in the Essex Estuaries Complex (DM3) and Scheldt Estuary (DM5) (TRL 7–8), medium in Gyldensteen Coastal Lagoon (DM1) and the Wadden Sea (DM2) (6–7), and lower in southern and Atlantic sites (4–5) in Loire Estuary (DM6), Ria de Aveiro (DM7) and Cadiz Bay (DM8). Despite increasing implementation, rewilding faces technical obstacles such as sediment deficits, dike constraints, agricultural legacies, and vegetation recovery capabilities. However, drivers including sediment nourishment, adaptive dike management, low-intensity grazing, and species reintroduction foster ecosystem recovery. The TRL framework thus provides a structured tool to monitor progress and guide future coastal restoration strategies.