The Coastal Zone Environment
15
Artificial Seaweed
This is a relatively new idea and involves implanting artificial seaweed fronds into the
nearshore zone in order to reduce wave energy (Carter, 1988). Such a technique would,
like offshore barriers, protect both sea walls and exposed coast from wave attack while
also encouraging sedimentation. Costs of installing such a device like this have been
calculated to be less than one quarter of breakwaters (Carter, 1988) and they are
economically viable in the short term. Unfortunately, schemes have shown contrasting
degrees of success. In Bridlington, northeastern England, seaweed mats were abandoned
when they were dislodged (Carter, 1988). In reality artificial seaweed would only be
another human structure cutting down on natural sediment movement.
Coastal structures and defences are problematic because they too often work
against nature rather than with it. However, “since we have created assets along our
coast and are reluctant to give them up, we are committed to defending the status quo
over a large proportion of the total frontage [of our coastline]” (Wakelin, 1989, p. 150).
Yet, whatever the technique used for coastal defence against flooding and
erosion, there will be no system which can overcome all eventualities (MAFF, 1993).
As modern literature repeatedly points out, coasts are dynamic, they continually change,
and no one can predict with absolute certainty what will happen. Flood defences are
only designed to withstand a certain height and frequency of storm, and protection
measures are unlikely to stop all erosion. In England and Wales, MAFF claims to
ensure that adequate flood warning procedures exist (MAFF, 1996). They also fund the
National Storm Tide Warning Service (STWS) operated by the Meteorological Office.
The Environment Agency maintains local tide warning systems where required, and
operate them in conjunction with STWS. Where floods are likely, people’s lives can
still be saved, even if they do eventually have to forfeit their property.
However, the real solution to protecting the human and built environment
would be not to develop in marginal areas liable to flooding and erosion. As Moutzouris
(1995) has argued “erosion [and flooding] only become(s) recognised as a problem
when resources near the shoreline become threatened” (Moutzouris, 1995, p. 153).
Humans have consistently built at the coast, usually for good reasons, but have just as
often ignored the potential hazards of doing so. While the planning system has been
very successful in arresting the spread of piecemeal development along the undeveloped
coast, “it has had limited effectiveness in addressing issues related to coastal hazards
such as erosion, deposition and flooding” (Lee, 1993, p. 170). Lee (1993) attributes this
to:
1)
2)
a lack of appreciation of the dynamic nature of the coastline.
a lack of co-ordination between land use planning and coastal defence
strategy.
In the future, MAFF will have to pursue their objective in discouraging
inappropriate development, emphasised in the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance
Note on Coastal Planning (PPG20). It may also be useful for CPAs to include in SMPs a
land use map, delimiting the areas they consider to be most at risk, indeed, a
classification of land use is advised by MAFF (1995).
15
Artificial Seaweed
This is a relatively new idea and involves implanting artificial seaweed fronds into the
nearshore zone in order to reduce wave energy (Carter, 1988). Such a technique would,
like offshore barriers, protect both sea walls and exposed coast from wave attack while
also encouraging sedimentation. Costs of installing such a device like this have been
calculated to be less than one quarter of breakwaters (Carter, 1988) and they are
economically viable in the short term. Unfortunately, schemes have shown contrasting
degrees of success. In Bridlington, northeastern England, seaweed mats were abandoned
when they were dislodged (Carter, 1988). In reality artificial seaweed would only be
another human structure cutting down on natural sediment movement.
Coastal structures and defences are problematic because they too often work
against nature rather than with it. However, “since we have created assets along our
coast and are reluctant to give them up, we are committed to defending the status quo
over a large proportion of the total frontage [of our coastline]” (Wakelin, 1989, p. 150).
Yet, whatever the technique used for coastal defence against flooding and
erosion, there will be no system which can overcome all eventualities (MAFF, 1993).
As modern literature repeatedly points out, coasts are dynamic, they continually change,
and no one can predict with absolute certainty what will happen. Flood defences are
only designed to withstand a certain height and frequency of storm, and protection
measures are unlikely to stop all erosion. In England and Wales, MAFF claims to
ensure that adequate flood warning procedures exist (MAFF, 1996). They also fund the
National Storm Tide Warning Service (STWS) operated by the Meteorological Office.
The Environment Agency maintains local tide warning systems where required, and
operate them in conjunction with STWS. Where floods are likely, people’s lives can
still be saved, even if they do eventually have to forfeit their property.
However, the real solution to protecting the human and built environment
would be not to develop in marginal areas liable to flooding and erosion. As Moutzouris
(1995) has argued “erosion [and flooding] only become(s) recognised as a problem
when resources near the shoreline become threatened” (Moutzouris, 1995, p. 153).
Humans have consistently built at the coast, usually for good reasons, but have just as
often ignored the potential hazards of doing so. While the planning system has been
very successful in arresting the spread of piecemeal development along the undeveloped
coast, “it has had limited effectiveness in addressing issues related to coastal hazards
such as erosion, deposition and flooding” (Lee, 1993, p. 170). Lee (1993) attributes this
to:
1)
2)
a lack of appreciation of the dynamic nature of the coastline.
a lack of co-ordination between land use planning and coastal defence
strategy.
In the future, MAFF will have to pursue their objective in discouraging
inappropriate development, emphasised in the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance
Note on Coastal Planning (PPG20). It may also be useful for CPAs to include in SMPs a
land use map, delimiting the areas they consider to be most at risk, indeed, a
classification of land use is advised by MAFF (1995).