Marine and coastal resource management principles and practice

He is director of the Aberdeen Institute for Coastal Science and Management AICSM and the UAV/UAS Centre for Environmental Monitor-ing and Mapping UCEMM in the Department of Geography an

Marine and Coastal Resource

Management

In this new and highly original textbook for a range of interdisciplinary courses and degree programmes focusing on marine and coastal resource management, readers are offered an introduction to the subject matter, a broad perspective and understand-ing, case study applications, and a reference source Each chapter is written by an international authority and expert in the respective field, providing perspectives from physical and human geography, marine biology and fisheries, planning and surveying, law, technology, environmental change, engineering, and tourism

In addition to an overview of the theory and practice of its subject area, many ters include detailed case studies to illustrate the applications, including relationships

chap-to decision-making requirements at local, regional, and national levels Each chapter also includes a list of references for further reading, with a selection of key journal papers and URLs Overall, this volume provides a key textbook for undergraduate and postgraduate courses and for the coastal or marine practitioner, as well as a long-term reference for students

David R Green is a specialist in the application of geospatial technologies to coastal

and marine environments He is director of the Aberdeen Institute for Coastal Science and Management (AICSM) and the UAV/UAS Centre for Environmental Monitor-ing and Mapping (UCEMM) in the Department of Geography and Environment, School of Geosciences, at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, UK; director and vice-chair of the East Grampian Coastal Partnership (EGCP Ltd) in Aberdeen; and

editor-in-chief of the Journal of Coastal Conservation, Management and Planning

(Springer) He is also the editor of a number of books on coastal zone management

Jeffrey L Payne is director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Adminis-tration’s Office for Coastal Management Under his leadership, the nation’s coastal management activities are coordinated to address the significant challenges affect-ing our coastal communities, with a focus on customer needs and a commitment

to partnerships He brings 30 years of experience in environmental policy, natural resources management, community resilience, climate adaptation, oceanographic re-search and organisational development He has held previous positions as the NOAA deputy chief of staff and deputy of the NOAA policy office, as the budget examiner for NOAA programs in the White House Office of Management and Budget, and as legislative staff on Capitol Hill as a Congressional Science and Engineering Fellow Among his current interagency appointments, he serves as the NOAA representative

to the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, the Recovery Support Function Leadership Group, the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, and the U.S Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

Earthscan Oceans

For further details please visit the series page on the Routledge website: www outledge.com/books/series/ECOCE

Marine and Coastal Resource Management

Principles and Practice

Edited by David R Green and Jeffrey L Payne

Marine Transboundary Conservation and Protected Areas

Edited by Peter Mackelworth

Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning and International Law

Edited by S.M Daud Hassan, Tuomas Kuokkanen, Niko Soininen

Marine Biodiversity, Climatic Variability and Global Change

Governing Marine Protected Areas

Resilience through Diversity

Peter J.S Jones

Marine Policy

An Introduction to Governance and International Law of the Oceans

Mark Zacharias

Marine and Coastal Resource Management

Principles and Practice

Edited by David R Green

and Jeffrey L. Payne

First published 2017

by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2017 selection and editorial matter, D Green and J Payne; individual chapters, the contributors

The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been

asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,

or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including

photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks

or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and

explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

7 Coastal data collection: applying geospatial

technologies to coastal studies 103

DAV I D R G R E E N A N D JA S ON J H AG ON

8 Basic prediction methods in marine sciences 121

TOM A Sz N I E Dz I E L S K I

Contents

11 Coastal ecology, conservation, sustainability and management 181

J PAT R IC K D O ODy

12 Management of marine ecosystems 202

RO G E R J H H E R B E RT A N D J U S T I N E SAU N DE R S

13 Public participation, coastal management and climate change adaptation 223

M E L I S SA N U R S E y- B R Ay, ROB E RT J N IC HOL L S , JOA N N A V I N C E ,

Victor Abbott is lecturer in hydrographic surveying, School of Biology and Marine

Sciences, Plymouth University, UK

Rhoda C Ballinger is a senior lecturer in marine geography in the School of Earth

and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University, UK

Jose Borrero is a coastal engineer/director at eCoast Marine Consulting and Research,

Raglan, New zealand

Carl Cater is associate professor, Swansea University, Wales, and researches the sustainable

development of adventure, marine and ecotourism

Sophie Day works on the challenges associated with adaptation to long-term coastal

change in the UK and abroad in the context of future climate change She pays particular attention to the issue of broad stakeholder engagement in the future planning of complex issues

J Patrick Doody was principal advisor on coastal conservation for the UK

govern-ment nature conservation agencies; since taking early retiregovern-ment in 1998, he has worked as an independent coastal consultant

David R Green is a specialist in the application of geospatial technologies to coastal

and marine environments He is director of the Aberdeen Institute for Coastal Science and Management (AICSM) and the UAV/UAS Centre for Environmental Monitoring and Mapping (UCEMM) in the Department of Geography and Environment, School of Geosciences, at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, UK; director and vice-chair of the East Grampian Coastal Partnership (EGCP

Ltd) in Aberdeen; and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Coastal Conservation,

Management and Planning (Springer).

Jason J Hagon is a graduate in geography and geographical information systems

(GIS) from the Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Aberdeen He is a research assistant in UCEMM (UAV/UAS Centre for Environmental Monitoring and Mapping), and marketing director of GeoDrone Survey Ltd

Nick Harvey is emeritus professor of geography and environmental studies at the

University of Adelaide, Australia, with forty years of research expertise in coastal geomorphology and management, focusing on impacts of climate change and sea level rise on coastal evolution and human adaptation

Contributors

viii Contributors

Roger J.H Herbert is principal lecturer in coastal and marine biology, Bournemouth

University, UK

Alison MacDonald is a qualified but non-practising solicitor and PhD candidate in

the School of Law, University of Aberdeen, UK

Shaw Mead is an environmental scientist and managing director at eCoast Marine

Consulting and Research, Raglan, New zealand

Robert J Nicholls is professor of coastal engineering, University of Southampton,

UK, with interests in long-term coastal engineering and management, especially the issues of coastal impacts and adaptation to climate change and sea level rise

Tomasz Niedzielski is an associate professor in the Faculty of Earth Sciences and

Environmental Management, University of Wrocław, Poland

Melissa Nursey-Bray is associate professor and head of the Department of Geography,

Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide, Australia She is ested in how communities get involved in environmental decision making, especially

inter-in relation to Indigenous issues and climate change adaptation management

Jeffrey L Payne is director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administra-tion’s Office for Coastal Management Under his leadership, the naAdministra-tion’s coastal management activities are coordinated to address the significant challenges affect-ing our coastal communities, with a focus on customer needs and a commitment to partnerships He brings thirty years of experience in environmental policy, natural resources management, community resilience, climate adaptation, oceanographic research and organisational development

Nigel Pontee is global technology leader, coastal planning and engineering, at CH2M,

based in Swindon, UK, and also visiting professor, natural and environmental sciences, University of Southampton, UK

Georgina Reid is a postgraduate student at the Marine Institute, Memorial University

Newfoundland, Canada, studying MMS marine spatial planning and management

Scott Richardson is associate professor at RMIT University, Singapore, with

aca-demic and professional interests in the cruise industry and tourism education

Justine Saunders is senior marine policy advisor, DHI Water and Environment (S) Pte

Ltd, Singapore

Anne-Michelle Slater is head of the School of Law, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Hance D Smith is editor-in-chief of the journal Marine Policy and is based at the

School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University, UK

Tara Thrupp is a researcher, Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum,

London, UK

Joanna Vince is a senior lecturer in the Politics and International Relations Program,

School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Australia, with research interests

in ocean and coastal governance

The idea for this textbook originated with a need to provide undergraduate students studying the broad discipline of marine and coastal resource management at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, UK, with a framework of reference and support for their studies over the duration of their three-to-four-year degree programme In many ways, marine and coastal resource management is very similar to the discipline

of geography It is an integrating discipline and one that draws upon the expertise, tools and techniques from many other disciplines In addition, it is also a vocational degree that ultimately provides a basis for students to pursue a broad-based career that falls under the terms coastal or marine management The coast involves aspects

of the landward side of the coastline, including the hydrological catchment, and the marine or offshore environment

For some students undertaking a three- or four-year degree programme, it can be difficult at the start to grasp just how the many degree programme subjects are inter-connected to provide them with the knowledge and understanding they need to enter

a career and be well prepared for a competitive job market This is particularly so in the first couple of years Feedback from students in the university degree programme mentioned above revealed that many students – despite attempts by academics to link modules (e.g in course outlines and handbooks) within a semester or year and from year to year – did not really put two and two together to comprehend how their cur-riculum evolved over the duration of the degree programme In part, this is because time constraints may require that an entire discipline get covered in one module at the start of the programme This may be followed with an advanced module on the sub-ject, but, if not, the coverage may be present only as part of another module, one for which the student is expected to recall the earlier content sometimes years later Not all students make comprehensive notes as part of their degree module, relying instead

on online materials delivered through software such as Blackboard In addition, they may not retain recommended course texts or keep notes beyond the end of a module

These challenges are compounded by the fact that the titles coastal manager and marine manager are not commonly found in job adverts What is a coastal manager?

It is a name given to someone who is responsible for managing the coast What does

it entail? For some, given that much of the management of a coast is often perceived

to be carried out by the coastal engineer – a coastal manager is a coastal engineer Will degree graduates find a job advert with the name coastal manager in the title?

Chapter 1

Introduction

David R Green and Jeffrey L Payne

2 David R Green and Jeffrey L Payne

Probably not! In reality, they will more often find aspects of their expertise and a broad knowledge of marine and coastal subjects and issues of value in jobs that relate

to aspects of management being the expectations of a position This means that they may not have a very clear picture in their mind of what a coastal or marine man-ager actually does, or until they gain employment, the actual breadth and practice

of coastal or marine management Ultimately, they will likely find that they need to know a little about a lot of things and will not necessarily specialise in one particular aspect For example, coastal or marine management requires a knowledge of the law but does not necessitate you being a lawyer What it does mean, however, is that there will be occasions when you need to know the legal aspects, and that you should have

a basic working knowledge of what those aspects mean, who to contact for more formation if needed and how the law applies to different facets of the coast or oceans The same also applies to planning, engineering, social sciences and geomorphology, amongst many other identifiable areas

in-Whilst there are already many textbooks on integrated coastal (zone) management (ICM/ICzM), ICM is often only one part of coastal and marine resource manage-ment and it does not include all the aspects of the broader subject There are many textbooks on the different subjects that make up coastal and marine management, but these tend to treat the subject from a single perspective This limits appreciation

of the more holistic, integrated viewpoint This book is intended to address this issue

by pulling together the fundamental underpinnings of coastal and marine resource management into a single volume

For many students, the attraction to such a degree programme is the vocational versus academic nature and practical application In today’s world, this is increasingly perceived to be a pathway to a job and a career Possessing knowledge and under-standing that can be applied and practiced has many benefits for the employer who

is looking for a student with the practical and transferable skills needed for ment In a world increasingly looking for degrees that are applied, marine and coastal resource management is a perfect fit, provided that the student understands why a general knowledge of a wide range of subjects, tools, and techniques is necessary

employ-Aside from this, students are often attracted to the keywords – marine, coastal and resources, but perhaps more importantly, management – that make up the name of the programme The word management tends to suggest a future career combining

a range of academic subjects in the natural, physical and social sciences with tools and skills that allow the student to apply their knowledge and understanding in a job that has an element of management, managerial, and both immediate and forward- looking decision-making responsibilities

This textbook comprises seventeen chapters These are organised into five elements: the Introduction; Fundamentals; Mapping, Monitoring and Modelling; Current and Emerging Sectors and Issues and an Epilogue These sections provide a structure intended to focus the student on some of the key areas of marine and coastal manage-ment that form a foundation for knowledge and understanding as well as on specialist areas that are developing and evolving quickly The final section serves to provide some insights into key areas and issues that are beginning to shape the future man-agement of our coasts, estuaries and seas

Each chapter contains both broad and specific coverage of subjects related to marine and coastal studies In addition, small case studies are included to extend coverage

Introduction 3

of many interesting topics Case studies and example applications serve to provide links between the different chapters and the subjects discussed therein This volume will serve to provide a useful introduction and, in the longer term, a reference for the multiple subject areas that form the basis of coastal and marine management

Chapter 1 is a contextual setting for the book, what it covers and an outline of the structure In Part 1, Chapter 2 by Ballinger sets out to provide the student with a broad global introduction to ICM/ICzM, including an historical evolution of coastal management and some of the key definitions Chapter 3 by Mead examines a more localised approach to coastal management at the scale of the beach, considering the development and application of strategies to protect, preserve and enhance the beach, particularly in areas where erosion dominates or where there is a drop in sediment supply to continue to nourish the beach Chapter 4 by Macdonald covers another key area of knowledge that every student should know: marine law Critical in prac-tice, this chapter offers the student a ‘potted’ coverage of some of the main marine and coastal designations, with examples drawn from Europe and North America, with the intention of providing a basic understanding of marine law, boundaries and designation as an element of marine and coastal management, e.g marine pro-tected areas Chapter 5, on marine spatial planning (MSP), by Slater and Reid leads

on quite logically from Chapters 2 and 3 to provide insight into how marine and coastal management will increasingly be delivered and negotiated in practice and in decision making The final chapter in Part I, Chapter 6 by Pontee provides a broad overview of the role of the coastal engineer in coastal and marine management, touch-ing upon coastal defences, hard, soft and hybrid engineering approaches, coastal modelling and a link to shoreline management plans

Part II of the book is designed to offer students an insight into the importance of geospatial data and information in coastal management Chapter 7 by Green and Hagon sets out to introduce students to the data-into-information pathway, specif-ically looking at the rapidly evolving geospatial techniques and technologies that now provide the basis for the collection of increasingly high-resolution spatial and temporal data about marine and coastal environments, their processing, analysis, visualisation and communication Geographic information system (GIS)-based data sets are, for example, crucial for undertaking MSP Chapter 8 by Niedzielski covers the role of modelling in coastal and marine environments and reveals the importance and complexity of mathematical modelling and prediction This chapter also touches upon aspects of GIS and remote sensing data as well as programming, illustrated with some marine and coastal examples Chapter 9 by Green examines the needs and methods for access to marine and coastal data and information in the form of digital online GIS-based web atlases, with examples specifically drawn from the In-ternational Coastal Atlas Network A modern day equivalent of paper-based atlases, electronic storage and representation of marine and coastal data has revolutionised the ease with which people and organisations can now share and publically access this information The chapter also includes an historical overview of the evolution of the modern-day web-based atlas Finally, Chapter 10 by Abbot examines the basics of hy-drography from charting to navigation and a brief coverage of underwater surveying using an array of technologies from sonar to multibeam

Part III of the book – Current and Emerging Sectors and Issues – which in a marine and coastal management degree would often be offered as specialist options – focuses

4 David R Green and Jeffrey L Payne

on a number of distinct topics In Chapter 11, Doody brings together the ity of coastal ecology, coastal conservation, sustainability and coastal management Chapter 12 by Herbert and Saunders considers marine and coastal biology, marine fisheries and aquaculture, and extends the student’s appreciation of the marine envi-ronment in the context of managing coastal ecosystems Chapter 13 by Nursey-Bray

complex-et al examines a very timely and topical area of research on the need for adaptation

to climate change and its impacts on coastal communities and environments Another very important area of research relating to climate change concerns the challenges with moving towards a more sustainable energy future powered by renewables versus our current global dependence on carbon-emitting fossil fuels In Chapter 14, Smith and Thrupp examine the growing interest worldwide in marine and coastal renewa-bles, and the potential for conflicts of interest in the nearshore environment Chapter

15 by Cater and Richardson examines coastal and marine tourism, the popularity of which has grown considerably in recent years with social affluence and mobility, ne-cessitating greater knowledge and understanding in order to determine and mitigate potential impacts The final chapter in this section of the book, Chapter 16 by Mead and Borrero introduces the concept of surf science and examines some of the science behind the development of multi-purpose reefs, including artificial reefs

As an Epilogue, the final section of the book – Chapter 17 by Green and Payne – seeks to highlight some of the future issues facing marine and coastal environments worldwide as attention is once again focused on the many and often competing uses

of the marine and coastal environment This includes concerns such as the need for and impact of giant seawalls as coastal protection from storm surges and tsunami to the uncertainty now facing the Arctic with the rapid melting of sea ice, the cruise liner industry worldwide, marine debris and related implications for commercial shipping and energy and mineral exploitation, amongst others

It is impossible to cover every aspect of coastal and marine management in any single volume or even to begin to predict what will become the issues of the future However, this book sets out to provide the basic background knowledge required for coastal and marine management, together with some of the tools and techniques in use, key optional subjects of relevance and finally some of the emerging issues and subjects of interest

Part I

Fundamentals

This page intentionally left blank

For millennia, coasts have provided locational advantages for human settlement As a focus for trade and with ready access to rich coastal resources, the attraction of these areas has resulted in the ‘littoralisation’ of human society However, the very attrac-tiveness of the coast has been the agent of its decline The extensive depletion and degradation of highly productive ecosystems, including mangroves and coral reefs,

over the last century is well documented (Agardy et al., 2005; Kay and Alder, 2005)

This has resulted in marked reduction of many of the benefits provided by coasts, including their natural defence capacity Half of the world’s wetlands disappeared over the previous century due to human interference (Creel, 2005) Pollution impacts and overexploitation of coastal resources, particularly fisheries, also pose pressures

on coastal systems and threaten the well-being of coastal populations

Academics and others began to question approaches to coastal governance, larly institutional arrangements for coastal areas, towards the end of the twentieth century, as they became increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of traditional sec-toral management practices in stemming the decline in coastal environmental quality (for example, Sorensen and McCreary, 1990) Sectoral approaches were deemed incapable of addressing ‘wicked’ coastal problems: those resulting from the complexity and interconnectivity of coastal systems, including both human and physical subsys-tems and associated cascading impacts Much debate focused around the inadequa-cies of fragmented institutional arrangements, which, in many countries, had arisen through the piecemeal and reactive evolution of legislation (Sorensen and McCreary, 1990) It was suggested that the resultant disjointed, sectoral and function- based organisational structures perpetuated silo-like professional mindsets, leading to nar-row windows of decision making This, it was contended, could induce significant incompatibilities and potential conflicts between stakeholder groups, especially in the context of the limited space and associated power struggles typical of many congested coastal areas

particu-The inappropriate division of responsibilities across the land-sea interface was deemed

to lie at the root of many coastal problems National bodies with long time horizons and strategic concerns generally have dominated offshore In contrast, onshore, locally- focused bodies, with more community-based and shorter- time priorities, steer onshore decision making and planning, often compromising environmental health for expe-diency and shorter-term gain Figure 2.1 demonstrates the jurisdictional complexity associated with the land-sea interface for the English coast and Table 2.1 highlights

Chapter 2

An introduction to integrated

coastal zone management

Rhoda C Ballinger

Table 2.1 Main fluxes between land and sea

Earthquake debris 

Volcanic debris   Energy/debris from hurricanes Cold water & nutrients from upwelling

 Wave action

 Salt & salt aerosols

 Nutrients through carcasses, guano

River discharge 

Groundwater 

Sediment 

Nutrients & minerals 

Humics & organics 

Oil & chemicals 

Human viruses & bacteria (from sewage)



 Pharmaceuticals from offshore fish farms

 Oil & chemical spills

 Chronic input of oil & chemicals from offshore operations

 Ship wastes including ballast water with exotic organisms

 Saltwater intrusion of aquifers

Source: Adapted from: Agardy et al (2005).

Dry Land 3 Nautical Miles 6 Nautical Miles 12 Nautical Miles

Foreshore

MHWM

Local Planning Authority

(LP)

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)

SMP CP

CDS BMP

Crown Estate management

(Planning Regs apply)

Marine Management Organisation

Marine Plans

Port & Harbour Authorities

The onshore and offshore boundaries of coastal planning and management in England

LP RBMP SMP CP CDS BMP

Local Plan River Basin Management Plan Shoreline Management Plan Coastal Partnership Coastal Defence Strategy

Abbreviations MLWM

Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities

1 Nautical Mile

Figure 2.1 The onshore and offshore boundaries of coastal planning and management

in England.

Source: Original.

Integrated coastal zone management 9

the range of fluxes which are common across the littoral Given the human tion and derivation of many of these fluxes, it is vital to ensure that this jurisdictional

amplifica-‘jungle’ does not hinder the system-based approach required to manage such processes

(Agardy et al., 2005) As Cicin-Sain et al (2002) also point out, such fluxes are not

insignificant: 77 per cent of land-based pollutants influence coastal ecosystems and 44 per cent of these arise from inadequately treated wastes and catchment runoff

This chapter provides an overview of integrated coastal zone management (ICzM), which evolved as a mechanism to address these problems, particularly the inadequacies

of existing coastal governance, planning and management The chapter commences with a brief outline of the evolution of ICzM before providing an explanation of the key characteristics of ICzM and an evaluation of the concept and approach The chapter concludes by considering the future of ICzM and allied processes alongside increasing coastal environmental and socioeconomic pressures

The development of ICZM

The prelude to coastal zone management began nearly half a century ago with the gradual realisation that well established, sectoral management and planning ap-proaches were failing to curb the degeneration of coastal habitats and overexploita-tion of coastal resources Alongside this, heightened recognition of the role and value

of coastal areas in supporting coastal communities prompted the first tranche of coastal zone management programmes and associated enactments These included the Californian Coastal Management Act 1969 and the US Federal Coastal zone Management Act 1972, following years of gestation and debate (Godschalk, 2010)

A significant landmark in the history of coastal management, the US act provided incentive- based legislation and measures to encourage and support the development

of coastal zone management policies and plans by individual states, and included provisions for conducting research, training, education and stewardship in estuarine areas of special significance Such planning embraced both on and offshore areas and was cross-sectoral, addressing key coastal issues including ones associated with hazards, pollution, visual aesthetics and reduced public access to the shoreline As Godschalk (2010) remarks, pioneering and well-respected state programs, such as that in North Carolina, emerged as a result of this act

Elsewhere, whilst there was considerable academic interest in coastal zone ment, this frequently only led to protracted scrutiny of the concept and its application rather than decisive actions This was the case in Australia from the 1970s, where a succession of national inquiries and reports, promoting specific national policy and legislation for integrated resource management, provoked little action (Norman, 2009) In other countries, embryonic, prototypes of coastal zone management were emerging, tailored to local concerns In the United Kingdom (UK) disquiet over the despoliation of natural coastal landscapes associated with urban sprawl and uncon-trolled recreational access, resulted in management programmes being established for newly defined ‘heritage’ coasts These coastal plans, focusing on landscape protection, access and recreation, were supported in many areas by coastal land acquisition under the National Trust’s Enterprise Neptune programme, to many the ‘jewel in the crown’

manage-of European coastal management (Ballinger, 1999)

By the 1980s, coastal zone management practice had begun to proliferate, particularly within South East Asia, the Mediterranean and South America (Sorensen, 2002) This

10 Rhoda C Ballinger

was aided by significant overseas aid and technical assistance, particularly through the

US Agency for International Development (US AID) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (Godschalk, 2010) The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) initiative, supported by the former, was noteworthy Established in 1986, this addressed natural resource depletion and coastal environmental degradation across the region (Chua, 1993) Whilst initially based on the US coastal zone management ‘model,’ the different governance and other characteristics of the region, resulted in the tailoring

of the generic ICzM approach to suit the specific needs of individual countries

However, it was the concept of sustainable development, articulated in 1987 by the United Nations (UN) World Commission on Environment and Development report

‘Our Common Future,’ (the Brundtland Report), which had one of the most profound influences on the development of coastal management With demands for ecological, economic and social sustainability, this concept became the dominant paradigm for coastal management (Godschalk, 2010) following the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 The Earth Summit not only promoted sustainable development through its non-binding action plan, Agenda 21, but also placed ICzM in the limelight Calling on states to introduce coordinating mecha-nisms for coastal areas, the plan highlighted the need for ‘integration’ of sectoral programmes Coastal and marine plans were advised along with a range of other technical tools including Environmental Impact Assessment, capacity-building, mon-itoring and information management

Catalysed by the Earth Summit, a plethora of international guidelines, books and prescriptions from various global institutions sought to ‘further define, interpret and operationalise the Integrated Coastal Management concept (ICM),’ setting ICM as an institutional norm for countries to adopt (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998) Endorsement and guidelines came from, amongst others, the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP, 1996), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 1995), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1998) the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (WWF and IUCN, 1998) and the

hand-World Bank (1993: The Noordwijk Guidelines for Coastal zone Management) These

established ground rules for subsequent coastal management, defining the scope as well as the key principles and management measures to be adopted (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998) Indeed, the long-lasting definition of ICM, still widely used, was coined by the GESAMP guidelines over fifteen years ago Placing ICM firmly centre- stage, such guidelines promoted widespread global investment into ICM projects across the developing world by UN agencies and multilateral development banks, prior to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) supporting such initiatives (Chua, 1993) So by the dawn of the new millennium, Kay and Alder (2005) estimated there had been a two to three-fold increase in ICM efforts compared with the previous dec-ade Similarly, Sorensen (2002) estimates a significant growth of ICM local, national and international efforts over this period Of particular note is the PEMSEA project (Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia) This sup-ported the establishment of intergovernmental, interagency and multi-sectoral part-nerships, a driving force for ICM in the region

Compared to elsewhere, Europe was a late developer, slow to embrace the need for any specific, dedicated coastal management approach Whilst disquiet amongst

Integrated coastal zone management 11

user groups, practitioners, non-government organisations, academics and others was mounting in many countries, such as the UK (Ballinger, 1999), the European Community chose to focus on developing generic environmental legislation rather than any specific instrument for the coast Whilst this did deliver some environmental improvements for coastal areas (Ballinger and Stojanovic, 2010), these were not con-sidered sufficient So, by the mid-1990s a Demonstration Programme, including pilot projects and thematic research studies, was conducted to inform coastal policy devel-opment Even then, despite much lesson-sharing only a weak policy instrument, the Integrated Coastal zone Management (ICzM) Recommendation, was eventually put forward (2002) This merely ‘encouraged’ Member States to develop national strate-gies for ICzM following comprehensive national stocktakes of relevant institutional arrangements and practices In contrast to the US Federal Coastal zone Management Act, it offered little incentive for state compliance, only providing weak interpretation

of principles of good environmental governance Consequently, the Recommendation resulted in piecemeal adoption of ICzM: even some Member States which have pro-duced ICzM strategies have subsequently abandoned these In contrast, the recent ICzM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention (2008) marks an exciting development

in the Mediterranean region, fostering better coastal protection and management practice At a time when the coastal zones of the Mediterranean face many environ-mental challenges, including climate change, this is a milestone, building on years of site-specific project experience of coastal management Fostering institutional coor-dination, it promotes the involvement of relevant bodies, including non-government organisations and competent authorities With no previous precedent for a specific ICzM legal instrument at a supra-state level, this pioneering initiative may serve as a model for other regional seas as indicated by the intentions of parties to the Nairobi

Convention and the Black Sea countries (Shipman, pers comm.).

The characteristics of ICZM

Defining ICZM

From a few pioneering efforts in the 1970s, ICzM evolved to become a well- established concept and mechanism at all levels of governance across the globe, challenging exist-ing management approaches and institutional structures and providing a process at-tuned with modern environmental management paradigms, including the ecosystem approach Whilst it could be argued that ICzM has a relatively weak theoretical un-derpinning (Kay and Alder, 2005), international prescriptions from various discipline backgrounds have influenced ICzM practice Additionally, practitioners and policy makers have fashioned ICzM efforts to serve their needs and aspirations As a conse-quence, there is a plethora of definitions and interpretations of ICzM (Table 2.2, plus, e.g.: Sorensen, 1993; Clark, 1997) This is both a strength and weakness It enables proponents to ‘cherry-pick’ aspects of ICzM with the greatest resonance to their respec-tive communities and interests However, the term’s inherent ‘fuzziness’ also leads to confusion and scepticism from critics, particularly those from entrenched discipline or sectoral backgrounds more used to tightly defined tools, such as Environmental Impact Assessment This has led to some coastal management efforts, such as those in Australia

or Sweden, not even being labelled with the ICzM title to avoid criticism

12 Rhoda C Ballinger

To add to the confusion, as major coastal management programmes have been tailored to meet the needs of different parts of the world, so the terminology and associated acronyms have been modified Whilst the concept emerged as CzM in the United States, subsequent terms have added the word ‘integrated,’ for example, Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) This emphasised the need for a more com-prehensive intersectoral approach addressing both socioeconomic and environmental matters (World Bank, 1993) The current suite of terms reflects the varying scales and orientations of coastal management programmes, and includes integrated coastal area management (ICAM), integrated coastal zone management (ICzM) and inte-grated coastal and ocean management (ICOM), amongst others!

Despite this frustrating heterogeneity, most contemporary ICzM programmes are

‘variations on a theme,’ with common elements relatively easily distinguishable All share a focus on the management of discrete, separate coastal areas, including both terrestrial and marine dimensions (Sorensen and McCreary, 1990) All recognise the complex and dynamic multi-dimensional challenges, ‘wicked problems’, posed by coastal areas which demand coordination However, the extent

to which these efforts incorporate all the dimensions of integration (Figure 2.2),

as defined within the academic literature (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998), is able In contrast, most state sustainable development as a key aim although some also highlight the overarching environmental and conservation needs for the zone, suggesting a rather ‘green’ interpretation of sustainability Many of the key objectives of ICzM programmes are similar These commonly include ICzM’s role in informing decision making, conflict reduction and prioritisation of man-agement activities However, given the tailoring of ICzM programmes, many lo-cally specific objectives, ranging from natural hazard management to land-based planning, are also included in individual programmes Various interpretations

vari-of the ICzM ‘process’ are apparent too when comparing programmes Although the definitions in Table 2.2 indicate that ICzM is a dynamic process, outside ac-ademia not all programmes acknowledge this Some suggest ICzM is a system,

Table 2.2 Some international definitions of integrated coastal management

‘a dynamic and continuous process by which progress towards

sustainable use and development of coastal areas may be achieved’

‘a dynamic process for the sustainable management and use

of coastal zones, taking into account at the same time the fragility of coastal ecosystems and landscapes, the diversity of activities and uses, their interaction, the maritime orientation

of certain activities and uses and their impact on both the marine and land parts’

‘a dynamic, continuous process designed to promote sustainable management of coastal zones ICZM seeks, over the long- term, to balance the benef its from protecting, preserving, and restoring coastal zones, the benef its from minimizing loss of human life and property, and the benef its from public access

to and enjoyment of the coastal zone, all within the limits set

by natural dynamics and carrying capacity.’

Integrated coastal zone management 13

framework or even just a project This causes confusion and serves to undermine the dynamic, governance process of ICzM Clearly, there can be systems, frame-works, programmes and projects put in place to support the ICzM process, but these alone cannot replace the longer-term integrated and adaptive governance process which lies at the heart of ICzM

ICZM principles

Given the difficulties of encapsulating all the key features of ICzM within a single tion, many guiding principles and interpretations have been developed to assist coastal decision making and policy formulation Emanating from international discourse and associated prescriptions many are closely aligned with general principles related to sustainability and good environmental governance (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998; Kay and Alder, 2005; Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, 2006) These include the Precautionary Principle, The Polluter Pays Principle, Inter- generational Equity and Transboundary responsibility In addition, there are principles which re-late more closely to methods of management, including adaptive, iterative and focused approaches Those produced for Europe are listed in Table 2.3 Whilst these have been criticised extensively by academics for their lack of clarity, prioritisation and elusive in-

defini-terrelationships (for example, McKenna et al., 2008; Ballinger et al., 2010), they have

remained the defining feature of the European approach to ICzM, providing dural (principles 7 and 8), strategic (principles 1, 2 and 5) and locally based guidance

proce-(principles 4, 3 and 6) (McKenna et al., 2008).

Inter-sectoral Amongst different

coastal sectors e.g

tourism, aquaculture, fisheries

Horizontal

• over time, space, actors and issues

• provides an holistic approach and perspective for decision- making

Aggregation for processing inputs

• enables policy alternatives to

be evaluated from an overall perspective

Consistent outputs

• provides conformity across all relevant policy arenas and plans

Inter-governmental

integration

Amongst levels of government Vertical integration

Includes both horizontal and vertical integration

Science-policy

integration

Between disciplines, science, policy and management

Figure 2.2 The dimensions of Integrated Coastal Management.

Source: Original.

14 Rhoda C Ballinger

The ICZM policy cycle

Bearing close resemblance to classical strategic business and planning cycles, the cess of ICzM development can be described in a number of stages The ICzM cycle, shown in Figure 2.3, illustrates the continuous, adaptive and progressive nature of the process, whereby successive cycles of learning build on previous experiences, events,

pro-information and knowledge (Olsen et al., 2009).

As Table 2.4 reveals, there are many interpretations of what makes up each constituent stage of the cycle However, whilst details vary, the overall concept and direction of travel are similar All progress from preparatory stages, involving programme planning and institutional and other capacity development, through to operational and formal eval-uation stages All emphasise the importance of firm foundations to ensure a sustaina-ble ICzM process The initiation and preparatory stages are vital, providing an holistic

Table 2.3 The European ICZM principles

1 a broad overall perspective (thematic and geographic)

2 a long-term perspective which will take into account the precautionary principle

3 adaptive management during a gradual process

4 local specificity and the great diversity of European coastal zones

5 working with natural processes and respecting the carrying capacity of ecosystems

6 involving all the parties concerned in the management process

7 support and involvement of relevant administrative bodies

8 use of a combination of instruments designed to facilitate coherence

1 2

3 4

5

Issue identification and assessment

Programme preparation

Formal adoption and funding Implementation

Evaluation

Time

Progressively larger cycle loops indicate growth in ICZM scope

Figure 2.3 The ICZM policy cycle.

Source: Original; modified from Olsen (2003).

Integrated coastal zone management 15

understanding of the coastal system and building the support, trust and commitment

of relevant stakeholders It is noteworthy that the ICzM Mediterranean Protocol 2008 and the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management (ICOM) process supported by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, adopt an explicitly forward-looking ap-proach through scenario and visioning stages This contrasts with other models where attention is devoted to identifying and addressing coastal issues at early stages of the cycle There is considerable potential in structured, formal futures approaches to ICzM, facil-itating more creative thinking than traditional technocentric and ecocentric approaches

to coastal management These may encourage more proactive attitudes to adaptation, enhancing appreciation of the interconnectivity of processes operating at varying scales

In contrast to most other ICzM models, the Mediterranean and ICOM approaches

lack a discrete monitoring and evaluation ‘stage’ per se However, both stress the

importance of monitoring throughout the entire cycle in accordance with ples of general performance management In response, a vast literature spawned on ICzM evaluation, particularly in the early noughties This includes discussion of

princi-process as well as state of the coast indicators, as exemplified by the European ICzM Progress Indicator (Pickaver et al., 2004) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission’s comprehensive suite of governance, ecological and socio-economic

Table 2.4 The stages of ICZM: a comparison

Elements of the ICOM

Designing the future Formulation–formal

adoption & funding

Sources: Belfiore et al (2003), Coastlearn website (www.coastlearn.org/); Henocque and Denis

(2001) and the Mediterranean ICZM Protocol 2008.

16 Rhoda C Ballinger

indicators (Belfiore et al., 2003) However, the Orders of Outcomes approach provides

the most useful framework for understanding and measuring ICzM outcomes (Olsen, 2003) Within this, First Order Outcomes define the enabling conditions for sustainable ICzM (Stages 1 to 3, Figure 2.3), whilst Second Order Outcomes signify deeper seated, behavioural changes, necessary for long-term sustainability of ICzM The model then suggests that, with time and growing capacity, end outcomes may be achieved These include Third Order Outcomes where environmental and societal targets may be met, and finally, the Fourth Order Outcome, sustainable development itself

In practice, the reality of ICzM programme development is less structured and

clear than that shown in Table 2.4 Burbridge et al (2001) note that some initiatives are kick-started into action through legislative reform at Stage 3 (Figure 2.3) and are

then followed by issue analysis and plan preparation, i.e Stages 1 and 2 Such ations may reduce the cost effectiveness of programmes as aspects of previous stages are revisited and revised Presumably, the ‘untangling’ process may reveal underlying misconceptions, prompting disquiet amongst stakeholders There may also be ten-dencies to skip key aspects of previous stages, further undermining subsequent efforts and potentially jeopardising the overall process

alter-ICZM tools and techniques

Given the broad canvas of ICzM, many tools and techniques have been used and adapted to support the process including many from general environmental planning and resource management The choice of these is frequently determined by human, technological and financial resources Ideally, bespoke packages are designed as part

of the ICzM preparation stage These then address specific local needs, including those associated with the strengthening of inter-sectoral and other human- relationships, vital to integration In practice, the choice and range of tools employed is gener-ally proportional to the task in hand, whilst being largely dictated by the resources available and technical know-how of staff So whilst there are programmes which use sophisticated and high-tech, often IT-based tools, these are generally only the well- established and highly resourced coastal programmes such as that for Chesapeake Bay Elsewhere, less well-resourced ICzM efforts, such as the non- statutory local coastal management efforts of North Western Europe including the coastal partnerships in England, often have to rely on cheaper, less high-tech solutions

Table 2.5 lists some of the most commonly used tools and techniques, dividing them into those associated with evaluation, implementation and governance improve-ment The first two categories are particularly important during the preparatory and implementation stages of the ICzM cycle and include supporting tools to aid process development The governance-related tools are essential to build institutional, com-munity and public capacity Within the latter there has also been recent focus on pilot studies and associated governance processes which engender coastal science-policy in-tegration, particularly in the context of climate and coastal change (e.g Cummins and McKenna, 2010) The ICzM academic literature abounds with papers evaluating the role of other governance-related techniques to ICzM, including ones on stakeholder analysis (e.g Rockloff and Lockie, 2004) and capacity-building (e.g Le Tissier

et al., 2002) as well as others related to data collection, information management,

visualisation and scenario development (e.g Ballinger and Rhisiart, 2011)

Table 2.5 Tools and techniques for ICZM

Evaluation techniques

Data collection and

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

• Carrying Capacity Assessment

• Landscape and visual resource analysis

• Rapid Coastal Assessment

• Ecological footprinting

• Risk assessments (e.g. erosion, flooding, climate change etc.)

• Vulnerability Assessment

• DPSIR analysis Pressures-State-Impacts- Responses)

(Drivers-• Multi-Criteria Analysis

• Resource Accounting

• Economic analysis, including Cost Benefit Analysis & Economic Environmental Assessment

• Stakeholder Analysis

• Indicator-based assessments

Implementation techniques

Strategic regulatory and policy

• Law and policy

(marine and land-based)

• National, regional and

local coastal strategies,

plans and programmes

• National and regional

• Permitting and licensing

• Planning and land use controls

• Set-backs

• No take zones

Techniques improving governance

Capacity building and

• Training for human

and best practice

• Conflict resolution techniques

• Bargaining techniques

• Negotiations

• Voluntary agreements

18 Rhoda C Ballinger

Institutional and governance aspects

Whilst Mee (2010) contends that there has been almost an unhealthy preoccupation

in the ICzM literature with institutional and governance matters relating to coastal

zones, a detailed debate on such matters has been necessary As Le Tissier et al (2002)

point out, the formulation of coastal policy as part of an ICzM process is as much

a political as a technical task It demands an understanding of rights, knowledge, values and beliefs of stakeholders to inform meaningful stakeholder participation and associated decentralisation of decision making Whilst early literature focused

on institutional arrangements for coastal management (e.g Sorensen and McCreary, 1990), providing much useful analysis of government structures, more recently aca-demics have focused on governance processes (e.g Milligan and O’Riordan, 2007) and community-based management (e.g zagonari, 2008), although authors, such as Boyes and Elliott (2014), continue to stress the inadequacies and over complexity of policy for marine and coastal areas

In the 1990s, literature focused on different institutional arrangements likely to improve ‘integration’ (Sorensen and McCreary, 1990) These included arrangements where coastal states had dedicated coastal ministries or departments, ones with inter- agency or inter-governmental bodies to coordinate across relevant bodies as well as others with cross-sectoral task forces, committees and advisory groups Much debate ensued about the appropriate legislative authority associated with such arrangements, inspiring many, almost routine, analyses of governmental structures by both national and regional governments In England and Wales, for example, the House of Com-

mons Environment Select Committee’s 1992 inquiry Coastal Zone Protection and Planning deliberated over the adequacy of existing policy and institutional frame-

works before recommending the establishment of an Inter-Departmental Group on Coastal Policy and a coastal management unit within central government, amongst other things (Ballinger, 1999) Whilst the former was short-lived, wavering from the start, a small coastal unit remained within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for some time

As noted above, community-based and interactive governance processes have ceived considerable scrutiny over the last decades Collaborative approaches, par-

re-ticularly partnerships and networks, have become de rigueur within this current

phase, borrowing much from general management practices within other discipline areas Coastally specific partnerships have developed, bringing together otherwise independent bodies to achieve a common purpose, often facilitated by a dedicated structure and plan Networks, looser, less formal arrangements, have also developed within many sectors and to address community interests in many coastal areas Some might argue that these new ‘institutions’ have developed to fill a gap caused by the ab-sence of a coherent institutional framework (Stojanovic and Barker, 2008) Stojanovic and Barker (2008) also point to their value in building local knowledge and capacity whilst others suggest their strength lies in their chameleon ability to modify their focus to suit local needs, aspirations and circumstances However, whilst there are distinct benefits of these collaborative approaches, as exemplified by Stojanovic and Ballinger (2009), the sheer proliferation of such efforts suggests a need for greater understanding of the relationships between these networks and the individuals within them Indeed, lessons learnt from the research of Kowalski and Jenkins (2015) about bridging organisations are relevant here

Integrated coastal zone management 19

Discussion: a critique of ICZM

From the preceding sections, it might be assumed that ICzM has reached maturity, recognised as a mechanism for facilitating the sustainable development of coastal ar-eas and for engendering integration across multi-sectors The large numbers of ICzM programmes noted by Sorensen and others is testament to its relative success These cover developed and developing countries across the globe and have been fashioned for all levels of governance, including locally based coastal partnerships in the UK to regional initiatives in South East Asia and the Mediterranean However, actually pin-pointing ICzM’s overall contribution to the on-the-ground improvement of coastal areas is notoriously difficult Whilst sets of indicators are reasonably well-established, capturing specific process and state-of-the-coast outcomes, these are not always rigor-ously applied All too frequently evaluation is over-reliant on anecdotal opinion, often from biased perspectives of proponents or antagonists Frequently also, evaluations

cherry-pick against ICzM principles rather than being based on empirical scrutiny

(Ballinger et al., 2010) This was particularly evident within some national stocktakes

undertaken in response to the EC ICzM Recommendation previously mentioned However, isolating the ‘added value’ of ICzM as one of many management interven-tions in the coastal zone is problematic Even for some long-established ICzM efforts, such as the US CzM programme, this ‘attribution issue’ has at times led to politicians questioning the overall value of the process

Further, the US state-based but federally-approved programs display a variety of mechanisms for internal coordination and decision making, sometimes housing the state CzM program in one governmental agency and sometimes distributing plan-ning and regulatory functions among multiple agencies This can create challenges, especially if different agencies view common objectives differently, or if changes in political leadership modify how the program functions or where it is housed On the other hand, concerning the relationship among state programs and federal actions, Section 307 of the US law, called the “federal consistency” provision, gives states a strong voice in federal agency decision making, which they otherwise would not have, for activities that may affect a state’s coastal uses or resources The federal consist-ency provision is a major incentive for states to join the US National CzM Program and is a powerful tool that state programs use to manage coastal activities and re-sources and to facilitate cooperation and coordination with federal agencies

There are some clearly recognisable benefits of ICzM Some argue that the focus on areas defined by ecosystem or physical system boundaries is preferable to programmes confined by inappropriate administrative boundaries Others point to improved practices and capacity, and many the enhancement of participatory management

processes through ICzM-type programme development (Christie et al., 2005) These

are considered to result in improved mutual understanding, trust and respect between stakeholders, suggested prerequisites to holistic, integrated management Certainly,

on the Severn Estuary, the local non-statutory ICzM partnership has provided some

of these benefits (Ballinger and Stojanovic, 2010) Stakeholders have become better aware of and engaged with coastal issues through the Severn Estuary Partnership’s regular multi-stakeholder engagement events and electronic communications Indeed, partners are currently working together to develop the Severn Estuary Strategy, a more coherent strategic estuary-wide framework for decision making Overall how-ever, given the specificity of ICzM efforts, generalisation is difficult as benefits reflect

20 Rhoda C Ballinger

specific aims and aspirations of individual programmes So, whilst the state’s CzM efforts in North Carolina have been effective in both hazard management and devel-opment control, the programme for New york State has addressed a range of other issues, including visual and access matters

Unfortunately, whilst it might be suggested that ICzM is a panacea for coastal areas, the practice often falls well short of expectations Despite some success stories and achievements, its status is often merely confined to a non-statutory activity with consequent low levels of funding and resourcing, leading to a downward spiral of support for and confidence in ICzM Reasons for underperformance abound The relatively weak theoretical underpinning and understanding may be partly to blame (Kay and Alder, 2005; Billé, 2007), leading to confusion amongst practitioners and policy makers about what really is ICzM ICzM then often becomes labelled as vague and peripheral and is discounted or sidelined This has happened in Europe, where ICzM has lost ground to other more tightly defined planning and environmen-tal management processes Additionally, the over-reliance on generic environmental governance principles as defining features of ICzM within the EU has not helped ICzM’s cause, leading to a ‘coastal policy squeeze’ The focus on local levels, often

cited to be the most effective level for ICzM development (Power et al., 2002) has also

led to decentralisation and associated knock-on issues (e.g Milligan and O’Riordan, 2007) These include problems associated with redistribution of authority as well

as difficulties with local communities being able to identify with and engage with the long-term priorities and the wider spatial scales required for sustainability (Mee, 2010) Overemphasis on local levels may also cause national governments to shirk their responsibilities in supporting such practices In the UK, this is partly the case Here, central government has recognised the successes of local coastal partnerships, but has provided little more than verbal/written acknowledgement of such efforts Also, many local efforts, in the context of a policy vacuum, focus on non- controversial, quick win-win ‘softer’ issues, such as recreation and information exchange They may even follow the aspirations and interests of the most vociferous, charismatic and resource-rich ‘champions’, who may have little political mandate The focus on par-ticipation is also a mixed blessing, especially in the context of local situations where there is a limited commitment and capacity of relevant communities, particularly in terms of skills and knowledge, leading to protracted debate and subsequent inertia McKenna and Cooper (2010) contend this is problematic across Europe Shipman and Stojanovic (2007) suggest that the project basis of much European ICzM activity has also done little to support the long-term development of the process, leading to high staff turnover as well as fragmented and disjointed policy cycles This problem, however, is not just confined to Europe: project-based ICzM the world over can result

in temporary and unsustainable outcomes (Christie, 2005)

Whilst ICzM is very much a social process and construct, the overemphasis of recent years on institutional and governance aspects has often been to the detriment

of other more pressing coastal management issues (Cheon, 2008; Mee, 2010) Billé (2007) questions the ‘community utopia’ of ICzM alongside the need for institu-tional integration and associated administrative simplification He suggests this may merely disguise existing tensions and power struggles ‘in house’ and queries whether

or not stakeholder coordination really will automatically reap true, integrated, listic management He notes that setting a problem within a collective framework

ho-Integrated coastal zone management 21

does not necessarily result in collective concern (Billé, 2007) Trade-offs will always

be required, suggesting that ICzM is really as much about distributive as integrative management Alongside such fundamental issues, others question the divorcing of coastal decision making from the underlying science of coastal systems (McFadden, 2007; Mee, 2010) and call for much better understanding of the scientific needs of coastal management (Tribbia and Moser, 2008) Despite attempts to redress this, this remains a key challenge for coastal governance Although, as Billé (2007) argues, the positivist illusion that scientific knowledge will always lead to better decision making may be flawed The science-policy interface is complex and clearly we need to better comprehend this In doing this, we must embrace adaptive management and improve our understanding of the operationalisation of the precautionary principle

Conclusions

As the preceding sections have shown, there has been considerable effort to develop new approaches to coastal management worldwide over the last half century in response to perceived inadequacies of traditional, sectoral approaches ICzM has been established as a mechanism to help deliver sustainability of coastal areas For many it may even be deemed to have reached ‘maturity’ (Billé, 2007; Godschalk, 2010; Shipman, 2012) Certainly, the recent enactment of the ICzM Protocol for the Mediterranean and the ensuing interest in this approach for other regional sea areas may herald the acceptance of ICzM as a key tool for managing coastal areas and their associated complex, inter-linked problems

However, as indicated previously, ICzM is not always the panacea some might have hoped for Deterioration of much of the world’s coasts has continued apace as population centres grow and encroach on critical coastal systems Indeed, 62 per cent

of estuaries and coastal marshes, 64 per cent of mangroves and 58 per cent of corals

now lie within 25 km of urban centres of more than 100,000 (Agardy et al., 2005)

Slow recovery of coastal areas and associated natural resources, such as fisheries, mangroves and coral reefs has occurred over the last few decades However, much of this is more easily attributed to improvements in sectoral management efforts than to ICzM itself Indeed, the preceding discussion suggests that, despite some notable suc-cess stories, ICzM is still plagued by underlying conceptual and more practical issues

These include an obvious implementation gap (Burbridge et al., 2001) and associated

problems related to difficulties in realising the higher level outcomes of the policy model Even some well versed success factors of ICzM (e.g Stojanovic and Ballinger, 2009), have been questioned by recent critics (Billé, 2007)

The aggregation issue certainly provides a dilemma for ICzM evaluation; ICzM development has not only occurred alongside the evolution of modern environmental management but also within a period characterised by significant transformations

in both general governance theory and practice Techniques such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and new, more integrated planning and management regimes for both catchments and offshore, have all promoted and indeed facilitated more inclusive, holistic and integrated ap-proaches In Europe, for example, adherence to the Aarhus Convention has helped engender community participation and shared responsibilities, These have in turn led

to some recent European legislation, notably the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and

It is the introduction of marine spatial planning (MSP), however, which is ing one of the most significant challenges for ICzM This is inducing coastal (policy) squeeze, threatening the very existence of ICzM Concerns over fisheries, offshore resources and the decline of marine ecosystem health, has led to this current interest

provid-in MSP Governments, across the developed world provid-in particular, have formulated new legislation, executive orders and processes, such as the Canadian Oceans Act (1996) and Strategy (2002), the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009), and the

US National Ocean Policy (2010) MSP has surfaced as the new panacea to deliver tegrated approaches for offshore whilst also offering increased accountability, trans-parency, science-based policy and stakeholder participation Déjà vu? There certainly appear many similarities to ICzM However, as Boyes and Elliott (2015) indicate, the legislation enacted to support the development of MSP in the UK has not really

o C

et

s

ol G

Bridgwater Port Authority

ABP Cardiff Cardiff Harbour Authority

Newport Harbour Commissioners

ABP Newport

Natural England

North Wessex

Upper Severn

NATURAL RESOURCES

West Somerset

Sedgemoor

NORTH SOMERSET BRISTOL

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Stroud

Forest of Dean Monmouthshire

Newport

Cardiff

Vale of Glamorgan

Gloucester

E I H S R T

S

C

O L

G

(Cardiff) (North Somerset)

Figure 2.4 Relevant authorities areas of jurisdiction, April 2013 (The Severn Estuary).

Source: Original.

Integrated coastal zone management 23

fully grasped the opportunity to create a radical restructuring of marine and coastal governance, although it does point the way to an ecosystem-based approach to man-agement Interestingly, much of the discussion on MSP in Europe informing the devel-opment of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (2014/89/EU) revolved around the inter-relationship between ICzM and MSP, debating the differences, similarities and synergy between the two processes However, the terminology of ICzM was, at the last minute, dropped from the directive, to be replaced by a short section on ‘land-sea’ interactions which, in Article 7, states:

In order to take into account land-sea interactions in accordance with Article 4(2), should this not form part of the maritime spatial planning process as such, Mem-ber States may use other formal or informal processes, such as integrated coastal management

This has resulted in many of the local ICzM delivery bodies becoming frustrated at what they see as the overshadowing of ICzM by MSP In the UK, this has not been aided by the government, which, whilst using some of the coastal partnerships to as-sist in public engagement events related to MSP, has made little long-term investment

in their future Such practice suggests that ICzM may be left ‘on the shelf.’

Whatever the future of ICzM, it is clear that pressures on the world’s coast will not abate Population growth is set to increase at unprecedented levels Climate change and associated, indirect impacts, particularly sea level rise, will compound existing

problems and provide new challenges (Nicholls et al., 2007) Billions are likely to be

exposed to a range of secondary impacts including increased shallow coastal flooding and tidally-induced recurrent flooding, coastal erosion, salinity changes and habitat degradation (Creel, 2003) and in South East Asia and the Pacific, millions may be-

come sea level refugees by the end of this century (Wetzel et al., 2012) In relatively

high-risk areas such as low-lying islands and atolls, food and health security cerns will predominate as populations lose access to land for habitation and agricul-ture, compelling a range of potential responses including displacement, migration and relocation Such matters will test coastal governance systems and management approaches to their limit and will require further capacity building, changes in invest-ment strategies and the placing of preconditions for sound management to be put into

con-place (Glavovic, 2008; O’Riordan et al., 2014).

Debate is likely to continue between and amongst academics and practitioners garding the future of ICzM Within this, it is inevitable that focus will centre on already well-versed topics (what constitutes appropriate degrees of decentralisation for coastal management, how policy might be better informed by science, whether statutory or voluntary statutory approaches are more effective, how participatory processes can be made more effective and how ICzM can be better linked to emerg-ing integrated catchment and offshore planning processes) Informed by such dis-cussions, it is suggested their coastal governance and planning is likely to be refined through incremental evolution and in tandem with improvements in general envi-ronmental management practice, delivering on-the-ground physical coastal improve-ments Whilst many think the main challenge may be to ensure that ICzM does not become squeezed out altogether from the already congested policy arena, the key issue is to really ensure that all the planning and management processes operating in

re-24 Rhoda C Ballinger

the coastal zone, including ones not specifically labelled explicitly as ICzM, reflect and embrace the diversity, complexity and dynamism of coastal systems These must attempt to deliver ecosystem-based management for coastal areas whilst working together within appropriate structures and governance cultures Embedding some form of interactive, adaptive polycentric governance, which reflects, and responds to, the demands of complex, multi-dimensional coastal systems is the challenge In this context, all ICzM scholars, policy makers and practitioners need to embrace recent emerging academic discourses led by Ostrom (2010), Pahl-Wostl (2009) and others

References

Agardy, T., Alder, J., Dayton, P., Curran, S., Kitchingman, A., Wilson, M., Catenazzi, A.,

Restrepo, J., et al (2005) Coastal Systems Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:

Ecosystems & Human Well-Being, Volume 1: Current State and Trends, W Reid, Ed

Island Press, pp 513–549.

Ballinger, R.C (1999) The Evolving Organisational Framework for Integrated Coastal

Management in England and Wales Marine Policy, 23(4/5): 479–500.

Ballinger, R.C., Pickaver, A., Lymbery, G., and Ferriera, M (2010) An Evaluation of the

Implementation of the European ICzM Principles Ocean and Coastal Management, 53:

738–749.

Ballinger, R.C and Rhisiart, M (2011) Integrating ICzM and Future Approaches in Adapting

to Changing Climates MAST, 10(1): 115–138.

Ballinger, R.C and Stojanovic, T.S (2010) Policy Development and the Estuary Environment:

A Severn Estuary Case Study Marine Pollution Bulletin, 61(1–3): 132–145.

Belfiore, S., Balgos, M., McLean, B., Galofre, J., Blaydes, M., and Tesch, D (2003) A

Refer-ence Guide on the Use of Indicators for Integrated Coastal Management ICAM Dossier 1,

IOC Manuals and Guides, No 45 Paris: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

of UNESCO.

Billé, R (2007) A Dual-Level Framework for Evaluating Integrated Coastal Management

beyond Labels Ocean & Coastal Management, 50(10): 796–807.

Boyes, S.J and Elliott, M (2014) Marine Legislation – The Ultimate ‘Horrendogram’:

International Law, European Directives & National Implementation Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 86(1): 39–47.

Boyes, S.J and Elliott, M (2015) The Excessive Complexity of National Marine Governance Systems – Has This Decreased in England Since the Introduction of the Marine and Coastal

Access Act 2009? Marine Policy, 51: 57–65.

Burbridge, P.R., Glavovic B.C., and Olsen, S (2001) Practitioner Reflections on Integrated

Coastal Management Experience in Europe, South Africa and Ecuador Treatise on

Estuarine and Coastal Science Elsevier pp 131–158.

Christie, P (2005) Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable? Ocean & Coastal

Management, 48: 208–232.

Chua T.-E (1993) Essential Elements of Integrated Coastal zone Management Ocean &

Coastal Management, 21(1–3): 81–108.

Cicin-Sain, B and Knecht, R.W (1998) Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management

Concepts and Practices Washington, DC: Island Press.

Creel, L (2003) Ripple Effects: Population and Coastal Regions, Making the Link: Population

Reference Bureau, 8 pp In: Goudarzi, S (2006) Flocking to the Coast: World’s Population

Available from: www.livescience.com/4167-flocking-coast-world-population- danger.html (accessed August 2012).

migrating-Cummins, V and McKenna, J (2010) The Potential Role of Sustainability Science in Coastal

zone Management Ocean & Coastal Management, 53: 796–804.

Integrated coastal zone management 25 Glavovic, B.C (2008) Sustainable Coastal Communities in the Age of Coastal Storms:

Reconceptualising Coastal Planning as ‘New’ Naval Architecture Journal of Coastal

Conservation, 12: 125–134.

Godschalk, D.R (2010) Coastal zone Management pp 44–52, In: Steele, J.H., Turekian, K.,

and Thorpe, S Editors-in-Chief Marine Policy and Economics from the Encyclopedia of

Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition Oxford: Elsevier Limited.

Henocque, y and Denis, J (2001) A Methodological Guide: Steps and Tools towards

Integrated Coastal Area Management Paris: UNESCO.

Kay, R and Alder, J (2005) Coastal Planning and Management, 2nd Edition, Spon Text 380pp.

Kowalski, A.A and Jenkins, L.D (2015) The Role of Bridging Organizations in Environmental

Management: Examining Social Networks in Working Groups Ecology and Society, 20(2): 16.

Le Tissier, M.D.A., Ireland, M., Hills, J.M., McGregor, J.A., Ramesh R., and Hazra, S (Eds)

(2002) Management Capacity Development Produced by the Integrated Coastal zone

Management and Training (ICzOMAT) Project, 196pp.

McFadden, L (2007) Governing Coastal Spaces: The Case of Disappearing Science in

Integrated Coastal zone Management Coastal Management, 35(4): 429–443.

McKenna, J., Cooper, J.A.G., and O’Hagan, A.M (2008) Managing by Principle: A Critical Analysis of the European Principles of Integrated Coastal zone Management (ICzM)

Marine Policy, 32: 941–955.

Mee, L (2010) Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: The Coastal zone in an Era of

Globalisation Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96: 1–8.

Milligan, J and O’Riordan, T (2007) Governance for Sustainable Coastal Futures Coastal

Management, 35(4): 499–509.

Nicholls, R.J., Wong, P.P., Burkett, V., Codignotto, J., Hay, J., McLean, R., Ragoonaden, S., Woodroffe, C.D., Abuodha, P.A.O., Arblaster, J., and Brown, B (2007) Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas Available from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/164/.

Norman, B (2009) Integrated Coastal Management to Sustainable Coastal Planning Thesis submission for Doctor of Philosophy, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning College of Design and Social Context, RMIT University, Australia 216pp.

Olsen, S (2003) Assessing Progress toward the Goals of Coastal Management Coastal

Management, 30(4): 325–345.

Olsen, S.B., Page, G.G., and Ochoa, E (2009) The Analysis of Governance Responses to

Ecosystem Change: A Handbook for Assessing a Baseline Geesthacht: LOICz, GKSS

Research Centre.

O’Riordan, T., Gomes, C., and Schmidt, L (2014) The Difficulties of Designing Future

Coastlines in the Face of Climate Change Landscape Research, 39(6): 613–630.

Ostrom, E (2010) Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic

Systems Transnational Corporations Review, 2(2): 1–12.

Pahl-Wostl, C (2009) A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Adaptive Capacity and Multi-

Level Learning Processes in Resource Governance Regimes Global Environmental Change,

19(3): 354–365.

Pickaver, A.H., Gilbert, C., and Breton, F (2004) An Indicator Set to Measure the Progress

in the Implementation of Coastal zone Management in Europe Ocean and Coastal

Management, 47(9/10): 449–462.

Rockloff, S.F and Lockie, S (2004) Participatory Tools for Coastal zone Management: Use

of Stakeholder Analysis and Social Mapping in Australia Journal of Coastal Conservation,

10(1): 81–92.

Shipman, B (2012) ICzM2 – A New ICzM for an Era of Uncertainty Keynote Presentation

at Littoral 2012, the 11th Littoral International European Conference Available from: www.littoral2012.eu/index.php?p=presentations.

Shipman, B and Stojanovic, T (2007) Facts, Fictions and Failures of Integrated Coastal zone

Management in Europe Coastal Management, 35: 375–398.

26 Rhoda C Ballinger

Sorensen, J (2002) Baseline 2000 Background Report The Status of Integrated Coastal

Management as an International Practice Second Iteration – 26 August 2002 Boston:

Urban Harbours Institute.

Sorensen, J.C and McCreary, S.T (1990) Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal

Resources and Environments Narragansett, RI: University of Rhode Island.

Stojanovic, T.S and Ballinger, R.C (2009) Integrated Coastal Management: A Comparative

Analysis of Four UK Initiatives Applied Geography, 29(1): 49–62.

Stojanovic, T.S and Barker, N (2008) Improving Governance through Local Coastal

Partnerships in the UK Geographical Journal, 174: 344–360.

Tribbia, J and Moser, S.C (2008) More Than Information: What Coastal Managers Need to

Plan for Climate Change Environmental Science & Policy, 11(4): 315–328.

Wetzel, F.T., Kissling, W.D., Beissmann, H., and Penn, D.J (2012) Future Climate Change Driven Sea-Level Rise: Secondary Consequences from Human Displacement for Island

Biodiversity Global Change Biology, 18(9): 2707–2719.

zagonari, F (2008) Integrated Coastal Management: Top–Down vs Community-Based

Approaches Journal of Environmental Management, 88: 796–804.

In recent decades, the way beaches and coastal amenities are viewed has changed markedly (Hickman, 2002) The main two components of this changed attitude are recognition of the social and economic value that beaches have (e.g Houston, 2013), and the realisation that often the best form of erosion protection and storm surge control is a healthy functioning beach system Indeed, Charles Finkl (in Williams and Micallef, 2009) advocates that beaches function as critical infrastructure for protec-tion and habitat that should be offered the same sort of protective consideration given

to coastal homes, businesses, roads, power transmission lines, ports and harbours As

a result of these changed attitudes and the better understanding of beach processes, management of the beach is nowadays being applied worldwide The zone of beach management normally includes the backbeach/foredune, the foreshore, and the beach out to the depth of closure (the depth of closure being the depth of the seaward extent

of the active beach)

Beach management strategies can be thought of as the development of hybrid tions, which are a combination of components that together provide the best solution for long term and sustainable beach health Beach management strategies incorporate

solu-a rsolu-ange of techniques, rsolu-ather thsolu-an solu-a single remedy, which often combine hsolu-ard solu-and soft engineering solutions while considering ecological and recreational components, i.e a holistic approach An important part of beach management is monitoring, which

is used to evaluate the success of the strategy and to guide the application of adaptive management techniques With a well-designed monitoring scheme, beach manage-ment can be continually fine-tuned to achieve the best results for each particular site As the name implies, beach management is a continuous and ongoing method of maintaining a healthy beach

Beach management strategies designed to protect, preserve and enhance beaches are applied where beaches have been, or are being, lost through erosion (e.g where there are properties or infrastructure built too close to an eroding beach or on coastal features that naturally re-adjust over time, such as barrier spits, headland beaches, etc.), or because of a reduction in sediment supply (e.g due to the construction of a breakwater port blocking alongshore sediment transport, damming rivers for water supply and consequently stopping river-borne sediment from reaching the coast, sand-mining of the beach for construction, etc.) It is as a result of human activities

or presence that beaches need to be managed if they are to be maintained; erosion (and accretion) of beaches are natural processes that only become a ‘problem’ where

Chapter 3

Beach management

Shaw Mead

An additional factor that is still mostly overlooked is the importance of the coastal zone with respect to ecological function and primary productivity The biological components of the beach system can increase the beach’s resilience and response to

coastal processes (e.g zanuttigh et al., 2010) This is especially true with respect to

sand-binding plant species; native coastal plants are salt-tolerant and capture blown sand to help ‘build’ and ‘restore’ sand dunes after storm events (see Box 3.1 Dune stabilization) The sand dunes are a critical component of beach dynamics pro-viding a buffer zone and sand storage so that the beach can naturally respond to extreme events

wind-Climate change, specifically sea level rise (SLR), has also been a significant driver behind the development of beach management As with many other systems, it is now recognised that a ‘healthy’ beach system has a greater capacity to react and respond

to the effects of SLR, as well as relative subsidence of the land Whatever the reasons for SLR, human-induced or natural, the indisputable fact is that the sea level is rising and it is likely to continue rising for centuries to come (IPCC, 2014)

Beach management falls into the relatively new category of coastal protection known as ‘managed advance’ Managed advance is now being seen as a viable method to not only maintain the existing social, economic and ecological values of

a coastal system, but also as a method to ‘buy time’ while existing valuable coastal infrastructure and property is utilised through its design life-cycle and adaptive

management options are developed for future generations (e.g Burzel et al., 2010;

Mead and Atkin, 2013)

In the past, three main categories of adaptation to SLR have commonly been presented: armour the coast, adapt the structures (e.g put buildings on piles to al-low water to pass underneath them), and managed retreat Only in the last decade has managed advance been put forward as a viable alternative to managed retreat (e.g Figure 3.1), and in many cases was put forward as the best option (e.g www.environment.nsw.gov.au/coasts/coasthotspots.htm) However, when the economics

of managed retreat – including costs such as government land purchase, loss of tax revenues, infrastructure removal and losses of economic and social benefits – are con-sidered against the cost of buying time through managed advance, the latter can often

be a fraction of the former For example, the preferred SLR adaptation approach for the coast of northern Germany is managed advance, which was determined through

a range of considerations, with the tourism value of healthy wide beaches in ison to armouring the coast or allowing it to erode being one of the strongest reasons

compar-for this approach (Burzel et al., 2010; Houston, 2013) Today, while the three

catego-ries to combat SLR remain valid, many planning and management initiatives include many more options (Figure 3.1)

Thus, our changed attitude to the value of beaches, our better understanding of beach dynamics and the real threat of SLR to coastal communities have all driven the development of beach management strategies

Beach management 29

Developing a beach management strategy

Beach management brings together many of the various principles and practises ered in earlier chapters The development of a successful beach protection strategy usually includes the following components:

cov-Stakeholder engagement

It is critical for the success of a beach management strategy to gain stakeholder support from the outset The inputs from the various interest groups can range from assisting in developing an understanding of site-specific processes, through to contribution into the beach management strategy and its long-term success within

a monitoring/adaptive management framework In many cases today, community websites are a main source of information dissemination throughout the development and application of a beach management strategy, as well as for monitoring results and adaptive management modifications (e.g the living beaches strategy in South Australia, the Gold Coast’s beach protection strategy, the Borth beach protection strategy in Wales, the protect Wooli campaign in New South Wales, Sidmouth and East Beach management plan in England, Longboat Key Beach management plan

in Florida) The roles of stakeholders, coastal communities and the public in tainable coastal management and their role in decision making are covered in more detail in Chapter 13

sus-Water

level rise

dunes

wetland seawall

“Do nothing”

“Managed realignment”

“Hold the Line”

“Move seaward”

“Limited intervenon”

Figure 3.1 The five generic ‘policies’ to combat SLR on the coast.

30 Shaw Mead

Legal framework

Similar to the continuous involvement of stakeholders throughout the process of veloping a beach management strategy, the legal framework should also be considered from the beginning of the project Indeed, in many countries stakeholder consultation and involvement is part of the legal framework that must be followed in order to ob-tain the permits to undertake a beach management strategy

de-Beach management is aimed at developing a sustainable solution for a particular coastal issue, and must also consider the sustainability and potential environmental impacts to the site itself and the wider environment These impacts are addressed in the legal framework through the requirements of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) or an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)

New zealand provides a very good example of a legal framework for managing coastal resources; in fact, it is considered unique as it uses sustainable development within legislation in the form of the Resource Management Act (1991) (the RMA) The general information guide Wikipedia uses New zealand’s national framework

to illustrate integrated coastal zone management The RMA (1991) mandated the development of the New zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NzCPS) and consequent regional coastal policy statements by each regional authority The coastal policy state-ment sets out the activities that are permitted, discretionary or non-complying on the coast, and Resource Consents (permits) are sought within the framework of the RMA (1991) In 2010, the latest amendments to the NzCPS were incorporated, which in-clude several policies directly related to beach management:

• Policy 6 – Activities in the coastal environment; structures be made available to public or multiple use wherever reasonable and practicable;

• Policy 13 – Preservation of Natural Character; recognise that natural character includes biophysical, ecological, geological and geomorphological aspects of the coast;

• Policy 14 – Restoration of Natural Character; promotes the restoration of natural character and functional integrity of the coastal environment, and;

• Policy 16 – Surf Breaks of National Significance – protection of seventeen nationally significant surfing breaks

Chapter 4 considers coastal legislation for resource management in more detail

Site evaluation

In order to develop a sustainable and successful beach protection strategy, it is critical

to understand and quantify the existing beach processes – beach management will not

be successful and sustainable in the long term if it does not work within the existing system Each site has its own particular physical and ecological characteristics and variables such as width/volume of existing beach, sand grain size, tidal range, exposure levels to waves and winds, nearshore/offshore bathymetry, sediment sources, existing coastal structures, biological components, foreshore vegetation, recreational ameni-ties; all of these aspects need to be taken into consideration during site evaluation, which usually leads to the need for the collection of data on-site

Beach management 31

Due to the wide and varied range of characteristics a particular site can have, it logically follows that ‘one size does not fit all’ – simply applying a beach management strategy that has been successful at one site will very often be unsuccessful at another

Design development

The design of a successful beach management strategy builds on the understanding developed through the site evaluation The first stage in the design process is most often an options assessment or feasibility study, which, these days, usually utilizes nu-merical models developed during the site evaluation phase, although it can be based

on a detailed understanding of the site For example, if the cause of erosion is the loss of sediment across-shore during local storm conditions (i.e steep, short periods causing the offshore transport of sand), then mechanisms to reduce cross-shore sed-iment transport, such as detached breakwaters or submerged reefs (USACE, 2002; Pilarczyk, 2003), are more likely to be part of a successful beach management strategy than mechanisms which reduce alongshore sediment transport such as groynes The converse is true where the cause of sand loss is predominantly due to chronic along-shore sediment transport during ‘normal’ conditions

In other cases, the loss of the beach may be due to beach processes, although the root cause is associated with a reduction in sediment supply, i.e the sand is removed from the beach due to movement of sand offshore or alongshore but can no longer be replaced at a rate fast enough to prevent a net erosional trend In some parts of the world, extremely large renourishment schemes are implemented to recharge beaches

to compensate the reduced supply (Mulder and Tonnon, 2010) However, this can be

a heavy-handed and expensive method of beach management that is designed to fail (i.e will need regular recharging) and does not recognize the importance of ecologi-cal and amenity values of the beach – nearshore habitat is smothered and destroyed, offshore donor sites experience physical and biological disruption, and surfing breaks are lost (although consideration of surfing amenity during renourishment has been

recently considered – Miller et al., 2010; Pitt, 2010; see also Chapter 16) Therefore,

it is often not holistic and in many cases unlikely to be sustainable in the long term for many sites

In most situations, simply adding the required volume of sand to the beach to ance the reduced sediment supply on an ongoing basis is not economically feasible Therefore, reducing the sand loss in order to reduce the volume of sand that needs to

bal-be provided for renourishment is applied in far more cases today By establishing a thorough understanding of the site, a combination of hard and soft beach management methods can be applied to create a more sustainable and stable beach management strategy This could incorporate initial large-scale renourishment, suitable structures

to reduce the loss of beach sand and dune stabilization through the planting of able coastal species to reduce the aeolian loss of beach sand; a chronic erosional process that is still widely ignored The Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy is a good example of combining hard and soft engineering options to develop a hybrid solution beach management strategy – (see Chapter 16)

suit-From the options assessment or feasibility study, the most appropriate combination

of beach management methodologies for the site can be determined and a detailed design process can be undertaken Similar to the options assessment, while some