Search

Coastal communities and their environments are facing unprecedented changes, with climate change driving rising global mean sea level, exacerbating extreme sea level events, and increasing hazards. Whilst adaptations to change have been central to coastal life for millennia, climate change brings a speed and intensity of change not previously experienced. Researchers are noting that adaptations are needed that are large scale and systemic with significant changes to lives and livelihoods – Transformational Adaptations – yet there is little evidence of this in practice, and there remains an operationalisation gap between ambitions and actions. This paper uses a qualitative case study method to assess how existing policy may enable and inhibit local stakeholder involvement in transformational adaptation in English coastal flood and erosion risk management. Through twenty interviews with coastal management stakeholders, the capacity for local coastal management stakeholders to initiate transformational adaptation and the perceived involvement of residents are analysed. The results indicate that transformational adaptation remains a distant aspiration in the English coastal management system, with local stakeholders possessing limited capacity to initiate it. The perceived role for residents in adaptation processes is often focused on their being recipients of adaptation interventions, and there are a range of barriers to their further involvement. The paper concludes that despite the theoretical interest in transformational adaptation, there is limited evidence its implementation in English coastal flood and erosion risk management, and there are multiple priority areas for policy development to support capacity for engaged transformational adaptation practices in coastal management contexts. • There are few examples of transformational adaptation in the English coastal flood and erosion risk management. • The perceived role for residents in adaptation processes is often focused on their being recipients of interventions. • There are a range of barriers for local stakeholders to develop and enact coastal adaptation policy or practice. • There are multiple priorities for policy development to support capacity for engaged transformational adaptation practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fraser River Delta (FRD) is a large sedimentary system and home to Metro Vancouver, situated within the unceded territories of several First Nations. This review provides an overview of the geological evolution of the FRD, connecting hydrodynamic processes with sedimentary deposits across its diverse environments, from the river to the delta slope. The study emphasizes the implications of sedimentation and delta evolution for natural hazards and coastal/delta management, pinpointing knowledge gaps. Comprising four main zones—river, delta plain, tidal flats, and delta slope—the FRD is subject to several natural hazards, including subsidence, flooding, earthquakes, liquefaction, and tsunamis. The delta plain, bordering the Fraser River's distributary channels, hosts tidal marshes and flats, including both active and abandoned areas. Active tidal flats like Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank receive sediment directly from the Fraser River, while abandoned tidal flats, like those at Boundary Bay and Mud Bay, no longer receive sediment. The tidal flats transition into the delta slope, characterized by sand in the south and mud in the north of the Main Channel. The FRD's susceptibility to hazards necessitates protective measures, with approximately 250 km of dykes shielding the delta plain from river floods and storm surges. Subsidence amplifies the impact of rising sea levels. Earthquakes in the region can induce tsunamis, submarine slope failures, and liquefaction of delta sediments, emphasizing the importance of incorporating sedimentation patterns and delta evolution into management strategies for sustainable urban development, habitat restoration, and coastal defence initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of the Coastal Genesis 2 research programme and its role in contributing to Dutch coastal policy are described in the paper. The organisation of policy development related to coastal flood risk and erosion in The Netherlands is addressed, highlighting the division of responsibilities between the policy and operational directorates of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. A conceptual model of the long term sediment budget of the Dutch coast that underpins the current Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management policy is detailed. The role of the operational directorate Rijkswaterstaat in coordinating a 'Research for Policy' cycle as a means of generating new insights on the coastal system and ensuring their subsequent inclusion in a new/revised conceptual model, is highlighted. By detailing the new conceptual model of the long term sediment budget, the paper demonstrates how key uncertainties related to this model guided the determination of the research agenda for Coastal Genesis 2. The paper concludes by reflecting briefly on the outcomes of the research programme and the role of the 'Research for Policy' cycle in ensuring the sustainable future of the Dutch coast. • Dutch coastal policy development responsibilities are divided between operational and policy directorates. • A 'Research for Policy' cycle coordinates developing new insights and providing policy advice. • Coastal policy is underpinned by a conceptual model of the long term sediment budget of the Dutch coast. • Revising the conceptual model of the long term coastal sediment budget guides the research programme. • Coastal Genesis 2 delivers insights on the sustainable future of the Dutch coast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding social-ecological system (SES) feedbacks and interactions is crucial to improving societal resilience to growing environmental challenges. Social-ecological systems are usually researched at one of two spatial scales: local placed-based empirical studies or system-scale modelling, with limited efforts to date exploring the merits of combining these two analytical approaches and scales. Here, we take a multiscale interdisciplinary approach to elucidate the social dynamics underpinning cross-sectoral feedbacks and unintended consequences of decision-making that can affect social-ecological system vulnerability unexpectedly. We combined empirical place-based research with the Robustness Framework, a dynamic system level analysis platform, to analyse the characteristics and robustness of a coastal SES in Cornwall, UK. Embedding place-based empirical analysis into a broader institutional framework revealed SES feedbacks and "maladaptations". We find that decentralisation efforts coupled with government austerity measures amplify second-order (reputational) risks. This prompted temporal policy trade-offs, which increased individual and community vulnerability and reduced social-ecological system robustness, impeding local adaptation to climate change. We identify opportunities to ameliorate these maladaptations by (1) implementing coordination rules that can guide policymakers in instances of conflicting coastal management pressures, and (2) recognising how second-order risks influence decision-making. This work demonstrates the strengths of combining local and regional analyses to assess the robustness of social-ecological systems exposed to environmental changes, such as climate change and sea level rise. Our results show how analysis of the multiscale effects of climate policies, decision-making processes and second-order risks can usefully support local climate change adaptation planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses upon the new landscape of strategic coastal planning and implementation in England and Wales resulting from the development of shoreline management plans (SMPs) by flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCRM) authorities; the issues raised will be very familiar elsewhere in the world. The real test is how to implement the many measures and management decisions within these SMPs. In many cases, those decisions were difficult to reach; sometimes the result was an uneasy agreement to maintain defences indefinitely, if the funding is available; elsewhere, bold decisions were taken to withdraw maintenance using the 'no active intervention' SMP policy option. This policy is often paraphrased as 'do nothing', but in reality it is usually far from being a passive exercise. Depending on the circumstances and rationale for not intervening, it may entail a lot of work and have many implications. What is the nature of current intervention? Are there existing FCRM assets in place, and if so, will they be dismantled or left to disintegrate? Either way, potential impacts upon public health and safety, the natural environment, coastal processes, amenity and local communities and businesses need attention, and the exercise needs careful planning and engagement. There may be other options to consider, such as the 'localisation' or transfer of assets, and management of them, to third parties - but what are the liabilities associated with this and is it sustainable? A well-planned decommissioning of assets that is written into a SMP in advance is more likely to address these implications successfully, whereas a withdrawal from maintenance in the teeth of local opposition despite an original intention to defend may become complicated. The FCRM community needs to be prepared for these decisions and their consequences in advance. Additionally, is 'no active intervention' compliant with European law? The Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working with local authorities and other partners on a number of initiatives that will clarify issues, review experience and provide simple, practical guidance to risk management authorities faced with implementing a 'no active intervention' option. This paper will highlight the results and products of some of these initiatives and reflect more widely on the 'deliverability' of SMPs as they stand. 'Doing nothing' at the coast is clearly less relaxing than it sounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an analysis on the risk management approaches for coastal areas in Great Britain in 2010. It refers to the adoption of a strategic framework for shoreline management as one of the most important methods that the British government implemented. It highlights the national research programme funded by the government to manage risks of coastal erosion and flooding.

Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is a challenging process, defined by stakeholder engagement and underpinned by knowledge on the integrated behaviour of coastal systems. While significant advancements in ICZM have been made, a range of difficult and important questions about ‘integration’ remain to be explored. This paper discusses opportunities for addressing such challenges of integration through the application of geographical thinking to understanding and managing coastal environments. It focuses on geographical traditions on systems thinking, the process-based nature of geographic research and geographical contributions to conceptualising place and our relationships to it. Using UK-based case studies the paper explores integration challenges from three different coastal contexts and management perspectives, examining: adaptation through managed realignment in a local community, integrated flood risk management in London and the Thames Estuary and enhancing the ‘socially just’ nature of coastal management. The case-study discussion highlights the importance of ‘geographical thought’ to improving the integrative basis of strategies for managing complex coastal environments. This paper argues that ‘thinking geographically’ is one logical vehicle for increasing our understanding of, and providing solutions to, barriers which limit progress towards greater ‘integration’ in coastal management. Geography is dynamic, plural and based on the recognition that reality is contested and as such geographical ideas could add considerably to emerging cross-disciplinary knowledge on the interactions and interdependencies of behaviours within coastal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The North Norfolk coast is a naturally eroding coastline that has been subject to various management strategies over time, many of which have impeded its natural evolution. The Kelling to Lowestoft-Ness Shoreline Management Plan underpins management of the North Norfolk coast, advocating policies of managed realignment and no active intervention for much of this coastline. Implementation of these policies would give rise to significant loss of housing in North Norfolk during the course of this century. This has caused intense conflict between local communities and coastal planners, with the former feeling abandoned to the vagaries of natural coastal processes. Coastal planners need to work closely with local communities to implement a long-term vision for a sustainable coast. The issues of conflicting land-use planning policies and compensation for affected communities must be addressed. The wider implications of current management strategies are not fully understood and may, in some cases, be unsustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]