Shona K. Paterson Arleen O’Donnell

Recreation and tourism

In 2007, the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) released a press statement claiming that approximately 70 percent of the world’s sandy beaches are receding (UNWTO, 2007). The United States is no exception, with widespread beach erosion being reported throughout the country. For example, nearly 400 of Florida’s 825 miles of sandy beaches are listed as seriously impacted by beach erosion (FDEP, 2009). Houston (2002) reported that travel and tourism was the United States’ largest industry, employer, and earner of foreign exchange and that beaches were the major factor in this tourism market; the same research also identified beach erosion as the number one concern of Americans who visit beaches.

Beach erosion within coastal tourism regions is, therefore, not only problematic to regional promotional strategies and the sustainability of business operations at large but also an inevitable occurrence. In instances where popular beach destinations are eroding, the unpredictable and recurrent disappearance of the shoreline becomes a challenge for tourism officials (Buzinde, Manuel-Navarrete, Yoo, & Morais, 2010). This has resulted in the use of various measures to curb erosion through beach replenishment efforts, which temporarily ameliorate impacts of erosion (Phillips & Jones, 2006). However, beginning a beach nourishment regime usually results in a long-term, if not indefinite, commitment to continue to fund such measures (Pilkey & Dixon, 1996), creating an economic burden and necessitating the development of comprehensive regional shoreline management strategies to prioritize and synchronize investments.

Ecosystem goods and services

The concept of ecosystem goods and services has become central to the discussion about the dependence of humans on nature and what it means both socially and economically (Costanza & Farley, 2007). The relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services is not linear. When an ecosystem service is abundant relative to the demand, a marginal increase in ecosystem services generally contributes only slightly to human well-being. However, when the service is relatively scarce, a small decrease can substantially reduce human well-being (Farber, 1987). This is especially true when considering the impacts of erosion on shoreline stabilizers such as wetlands, sea grasses, and coral reefs (World Climate Research Programme Workshop, 2006).

Studies have attempted to place a value on naturally occurring ecosystems such as wetlands that protect the shoreline from erosion as well as storm damage. In one such study, Costanza et al. (2008) demonstrated that the storm protection services for coastal wetlands in the United States can be valued at $28.3 billion per year (2004 U.S. dollars) with an annual value ranging from $250 to $51,000 (mean of $8,240) per hectare per year.

Resilience and vulnerability

Risk from shoreline change, especially with respect to property, has traditionally been covered under the realms of the insurance industry and has led to debates about the use of the National Flood Insurance Program as the mechanism to reduce the perceived risk (Hudgens, 1999; Keeler, Kriesel, & Landry, 2003; Leatherman, 1990). The physical risk component of shoreline change that has been primarily documented has focused on beach erosion, especially in the North Atlantic region. Zhang et al. (2004) developed an erosion-potential index based on storm tides, wave energy, and storm duration from nor'easters for large parts of the Atlantic coastline. Morton (2002) conducted an analysis of ground conditions and meteorological and oceanographic parameters for some of the most severe Atlantic and Gulf Coast storms in the United States to determine the primary factors affecting physical responses of beaches and barrier islands. The National Assessment of Coastal Change Project's Coastal Classification Maps (Morton, 2010) present ground conditions such as beach width, dune elevations, overwash potential, and density of development as a first step toward determining the risk associated with a particular area.

Most research on coastal vulnerability has focused on physical impacts of changing shorelines as opposed to social or cultural indictors (Beatley, 2009). The Heinz Center study (2000),¹ however, focused on historic erosion rates along U.S. coastlines and included both physical and social attributes to produce future projections of economic losses due to changing shorelines. The development of social vulnerability indices including factors such as age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, migration, education, and employment rates can be used to quantify vulnerability across different scales to various environmental hazards, providing a mechanism for the integration of social dimensions into planning (Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2003). Despite these advances toward a more holistic approach, research into social resilience, social capital, and social networks—all of which contribute to the ability of a community and/or individuals to reduce vulnerability to hazards—has been limited to date (Adger, 2006; Magis, 2010).

Conflict

Achieving equitable allocation of shoreline resources is particularly complicated due to the variety of interdependencies and trade-offs between economic, social, and ecological variables as well as the sheer range of different human activities undertaken in the shoreline zone (Crance & Draper, 1996). As with all cases of coastal resources allocation, there are winners and losers, and this leads to conflict among communities. Conflict is generally manifested over access (see Box 3 on the next page), use, and, in the case of shoreline change, the management approaches used to mitigate that change (Boukalova, Benes, & Koran, 2006).