|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | #Work with nature, for instance by re-establishing a starved coastal profile by nourishment and by utilising site-specific features, such as strengthening semi-hard promontories. | + | #REDIRECT[[Dealing with coastal erosion]] |
| − | #Select a solution which fits the type of coastline and which fulfils as many of the goals set by the stakeholders and the authorities as possible. It is quite often impossible to fulfil all goals, as they are often conflicting and because of budget limitations. It should be made clear to all parties, which goals are fulfilled and which are not. The consultant must make it completely clear what the client can expect from the selected solution; this is especially important if the project has been adjusted to fit the available funds.
| |
| − | #Propose a funding distribution, which reflects the fulfilment of the various goals, set by the parties involved.
| |
| − | #Manipulate the rate and gradient of the littoral drift rate and gradient by use of a minimum number of structures. Preserve sections of untouched dynamic landscape where possible. Allow protection measures only if valuable buildings/infrastructure are threatened. This policy will preserve the natural coastal resources and the neighbouring sections will receive material as a result of erosion in the unprotected area.
| |
| − | #Secure passage to and along the beach.
| |
| − | #Enhance the aesthetic appearance, e.g. by minimising the number of structures. Few and larger structures is normally better than a lot of small structures. Preferably allow only projects which deal with an entire management unit/sediment cell and which have maximum shore protection. Individual projects tend to concentrate on coast protection.
| |
| − | #Minimise maintenance requirements to a level, which the owner(s) of the scheme is able to manage. A stand-alone nourishment solution may at first glance appear ideal, but it will normally not be ideal for the landowners, as recharge will be required at short intervals.
| |
| − | #Secure good local water quality and minimise the risk of trapping debris and seaweed.
| |
| − | #Secure safety for swimmers by avoiding structures generating dangerous rip currents. Avoid protected beaches as these give a false impression of safety for poor swimmers. Protected beaches at exposed sites tend to suffer from sand trapping in the sheltered area. If the water is too rough for swimming, a swimming pool, possibly in the form of a tidal pool, is a good solution.
| |
| − | #Provide good beach quality by securing that the beaches are exposed to waves, as the waves maintain the attractive sandy beaches. This will of course limit the time when swimming is possible, but making protected beaches often means safety hazards, poor beach quality and poor water quality.
| |
| − | #Be realistic and pragmatic, keeping in mind that the natural untouched coastline is utopia in highly developed areas. Create small attractive locations at otherwise strongly protected stretches if this is the only realistic possibility.
| |
