by the same method because of the difference in the
environment of interest (land and sea), so the method
of Abbasov and Smakhtin (2012) has been adopted. The
population density in the five municipalities in our
study area is much higher than in Jakarta. Both
Jakarta and our study area have a relatively solid basis
in terms of environmental policy, but the execution of
the environmental policies is more effectively applied
by the municipalities of Jakarta than by our Algerian
municipalities.
Conclusion
This study proposes a first attempt to assess the environmental
vulnerability of coastal ecosystems at the local scale by integrating specific indicators, which make it possible to examine
the sensitivity of coastal ecosystems and anthropogenic pressure. The research effort was focused firstly on the development of this approach and secondly on the data quality to
establish the vulnerability inventory based on the actual conditions in the area.
We have found that the environmental sensitivity of the
coastal ecosystems in our study area is generally medium.
These ecosystems are exposed to anthropogenic pressures that
range from medium to high. As a result, we have found that
the environmental vulnerability in the study area varies in the
majority of cases from medium to high.
The ISEEL index developed by the four pillars showed its
effectiveness in this study as an appropriate tool, since the
results allowed us to rank the coasts according to their environmental sensitivity and gave us a vision on the sectors that
have a high priority in a threat situation, contrary to low sensitivity areas where restoration management can be used. In
addition, this study has also introduced an innovative parameter that can be used to assess in cascade the anthropogenic
pressures exerted by municipalities on their coasts.
This approach has proven its effectiveness in assessing the
environmental vulnerability of coastal ecosystems and its two
components (sensitivity and pressure). By confronting the final results of the vulnerability with:
– The unsynthesized raw data, which are used to construct
this work.
– The remarks contained in official State documents such
as “the cadastre, the urban planning and development
master plan, the land use plan.”
We conclude that the results obtained reflect closely the
reality.
As a consequence, these results can be used to guide
decision-makers in their decision-making to prioritize management and planning efforts in the future.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge A. Mezhoud, A.
Boumaour, N. Khelil, H. Sahraoui, and M. Sallaye for their valuable
comments and advices, and Sahar Shebaan for the English proofreading
of the manuscript.
References
Abbasov RK, Smakhtin VU (2012) Indexing the environmental vulnerability of mountain streams in Azerbaijan. Mt Res Dev 32:73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00012.1
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C et al (2005) Social-ecological resilience
to coastal disasters. Science (80- ) 309:1036 LP–1031039
Aretano R, Semeraro T, Petrosillo I, de Marco A, Pasimeni MR, Zurlini G
(2014) Mapping ecological vulnerability to fi re for effective conservation management of natural protected areas. Ecol Model 295:
163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.09.017
Bigot L (2006) Les Communautés De Macrofaune Benthique Des
Sédiments Côtiers En Zone Tropicale Non Récifale: Diversité Et
Réponses Aux Modifications De L’Environnement Marin À La
Réunion (Océan Indien). Université de la Réunion
Blue Plan (2012) 20 Years of sustainable development in the
Mediterranean: review and outlook
Caniani D, Labella A, Lioi DS, Mancini IM, Masi S (2016) Habitat
ecological integrity and environmental impact assessment of anthropic activities: a GIS-based fuzzy logic model for sites of high
biodiversity conservation interest. Ecol Indic 67:238–249. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.038
Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem
services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11:29 29\rArtn 29
Cuttelod A, Garcia N, Abdul Malak D, et al (2008) The Mediterranean: a
biodiversity hotspot under threat. Switzerland
Daeden J (2015) Analyse des pressions anthropiques sur l’environnement
littoral européen et français. Université de La Rochelle
Doukakis E (2005) Coastal vulnerability and risk parameters. Eur Water
11:3–7
Dutrieux E, Canovas S, Denis J, et al (2000) Methodological guide for the
elaboration of vulnerability maps of the coastal zones of the Indian
Ocean. Réalisé par Créocéan, Ifremer et Arvam pour le compte de
I’UNESCO/IOC et le PRE-COI/UE
Fattal P, Robin M, Pottier P (2007) Évaluation de la vulnérabilité côtière
face aux pollutions par hydrocarbures: Application à l’île de
Noirmoutier. Territ Mouv:54–69. https://doi.org/10.4000/tem.551
Fattal P, Maanan M, Tillier I et al (2010) Coastal vulnerability to oil spill
pollution: the case of Noirmoutier Island (France). J Coast Res 26:
879–887
Fritzsche K, Schneiderbauer S, Bubeck P, et al (2017) Guide de référence
sur la vulnérabilité Concept et directives pour la conduite d’analyses
de vulnérabilité standardisées. Berlin
Guit B, Nedjimi B, Guibal F, Chakali G (2015) Dendroécologie du pin
d’alep ( Pinus halepensis Mill.) en fonction des paramètres
stationnels dans le massif forestier de senalba (Djelfa, Algérie). 70:
32–43
Guit B, Nedjimi B, Chakali G, Guibal F (2016) État sanitaire des
peuplements de pin d ’ Alep ( Pinus halepensis Mill .) dans le massif
forestier de Senalba ( Djelfa , Algérie ). 71:156–167
He L, Shen J, Zhang Y (2018) Ecological vulnerability assessment for
ecological conservation and environmental management. J Environ
Manag 206:1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.
2017.11.059
Henri É, Singh B, André P (2002) Vulnérabilité de la zone côtière du
Bénin à un rehaussement relatif du niveau marin : étatde la question
et préconisations / Vulnerability of the Coastal Zone of Benin to a
42683
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:42670–42684
Author's personal copy
environment of interest (land and sea), so the method
of Abbasov and Smakhtin (2012) has been adopted. The
population density in the five municipalities in our
study area is much higher than in Jakarta. Both
Jakarta and our study area have a relatively solid basis
in terms of environmental policy, but the execution of
the environmental policies is more effectively applied
by the municipalities of Jakarta than by our Algerian
municipalities.
Conclusion
This study proposes a first attempt to assess the environmental
vulnerability of coastal ecosystems at the local scale by integrating specific indicators, which make it possible to examine
the sensitivity of coastal ecosystems and anthropogenic pressure. The research effort was focused firstly on the development of this approach and secondly on the data quality to
establish the vulnerability inventory based on the actual conditions in the area.
We have found that the environmental sensitivity of the
coastal ecosystems in our study area is generally medium.
These ecosystems are exposed to anthropogenic pressures that
range from medium to high. As a result, we have found that
the environmental vulnerability in the study area varies in the
majority of cases from medium to high.
The ISEEL index developed by the four pillars showed its
effectiveness in this study as an appropriate tool, since the
results allowed us to rank the coasts according to their environmental sensitivity and gave us a vision on the sectors that
have a high priority in a threat situation, contrary to low sensitivity areas where restoration management can be used. In
addition, this study has also introduced an innovative parameter that can be used to assess in cascade the anthropogenic
pressures exerted by municipalities on their coasts.
This approach has proven its effectiveness in assessing the
environmental vulnerability of coastal ecosystems and its two
components (sensitivity and pressure). By confronting the final results of the vulnerability with:
– The unsynthesized raw data, which are used to construct
this work.
– The remarks contained in official State documents such
as “the cadastre, the urban planning and development
master plan, the land use plan.”
We conclude that the results obtained reflect closely the
reality.
As a consequence, these results can be used to guide
decision-makers in their decision-making to prioritize management and planning efforts in the future.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge A. Mezhoud, A.
Boumaour, N. Khelil, H. Sahraoui, and M. Sallaye for their valuable
comments and advices, and Sahar Shebaan for the English proofreading
of the manuscript.
References
Abbasov RK, Smakhtin VU (2012) Indexing the environmental vulnerability of mountain streams in Azerbaijan. Mt Res Dev 32:73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00012.1
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C et al (2005) Social-ecological resilience
to coastal disasters. Science (80- ) 309:1036 LP–1031039
Aretano R, Semeraro T, Petrosillo I, de Marco A, Pasimeni MR, Zurlini G
(2014) Mapping ecological vulnerability to fi re for effective conservation management of natural protected areas. Ecol Model 295:
163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.09.017
Bigot L (2006) Les Communautés De Macrofaune Benthique Des
Sédiments Côtiers En Zone Tropicale Non Récifale: Diversité Et
Réponses Aux Modifications De L’Environnement Marin À La
Réunion (Océan Indien). Université de la Réunion
Blue Plan (2012) 20 Years of sustainable development in the
Mediterranean: review and outlook
Caniani D, Labella A, Lioi DS, Mancini IM, Masi S (2016) Habitat
ecological integrity and environmental impact assessment of anthropic activities: a GIS-based fuzzy logic model for sites of high
biodiversity conservation interest. Ecol Indic 67:238–249. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.038
Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem
services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11:29 29\rArtn 29
Cuttelod A, Garcia N, Abdul Malak D, et al (2008) The Mediterranean: a
biodiversity hotspot under threat. Switzerland
Daeden J (2015) Analyse des pressions anthropiques sur l’environnement
littoral européen et français. Université de La Rochelle
Doukakis E (2005) Coastal vulnerability and risk parameters. Eur Water
11:3–7
Dutrieux E, Canovas S, Denis J, et al (2000) Methodological guide for the
elaboration of vulnerability maps of the coastal zones of the Indian
Ocean. Réalisé par Créocéan, Ifremer et Arvam pour le compte de
I’UNESCO/IOC et le PRE-COI/UE
Fattal P, Robin M, Pottier P (2007) Évaluation de la vulnérabilité côtière
face aux pollutions par hydrocarbures: Application à l’île de
Noirmoutier. Territ Mouv:54–69. https://doi.org/10.4000/tem.551
Fattal P, Maanan M, Tillier I et al (2010) Coastal vulnerability to oil spill
pollution: the case of Noirmoutier Island (France). J Coast Res 26:
879–887
Fritzsche K, Schneiderbauer S, Bubeck P, et al (2017) Guide de référence
sur la vulnérabilité Concept et directives pour la conduite d’analyses
de vulnérabilité standardisées. Berlin
Guit B, Nedjimi B, Guibal F, Chakali G (2015) Dendroécologie du pin
d’alep ( Pinus halepensis Mill.) en fonction des paramètres
stationnels dans le massif forestier de senalba (Djelfa, Algérie). 70:
32–43
Guit B, Nedjimi B, Chakali G, Guibal F (2016) État sanitaire des
peuplements de pin d ’ Alep ( Pinus halepensis Mill .) dans le massif
forestier de Senalba ( Djelfa , Algérie ). 71:156–167
He L, Shen J, Zhang Y (2018) Ecological vulnerability assessment for
ecological conservation and environmental management. J Environ
Manag 206:1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.
2017.11.059
Henri É, Singh B, André P (2002) Vulnérabilité de la zone côtière du
Bénin à un rehaussement relatif du niveau marin : étatde la question
et préconisations / Vulnerability of the Coastal Zone of Benin to a
42683
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:42670–42684
Author's personal copy