6.1 Integrated Water Management for Quality and Quantity
127
• Nonstructural: The simplest approach is to allow coastal resources and land uses to
naturally respond to the changing conditions. If complete inaction is unacceptable, nonstructural options can help reduce the risk to property and the environment by removing
structures and directing populations away from vulnerable areas. Resettlement can be
encouraged by regulatory and legal measures that
– require structures to be removed,
– prohibit rebuilding of structures under special circumstances (e.g., after significant
storm damage),
– prohibit private construction of bulkheads,
– establish restrictions on new development through zoning or other means in order to
reduce population concentrations.
With regard to the third response option the experts explicate that “the process of gradual
retreat from areas threatened by sea level rise may require new institutional arrangements
to coordinate various levels of governmental decision making. It will also require public
education to increase awareness for all sectors of society about both the impacts of sea level
rise and the implications of various adaptive responses” (IPCC, 1989, p. 4). Subsequently,
in the report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup (IPCC, 1990b) on strategies for
adaptation to sea level rise the elaboration on the responses were introduced as retreat,
accommodate and protection (Fig. 6.2).
Possible options in the category retreat were divided into three different classes: (i)
preventing development, (ii) allowing temporarily limited development and (iii) no direct
government role.
The first option is linked to the effort of limiting the development in vulnerable coastal
zone entirely. Consequently, government has to take precautionary arrangements such as
land acquisition, land use restriction or reduction of subsidies and incentives for the development in vulnerable coastal areas. In the second case development could take place in
accordance with the rules set by the government which could encompass “(i) regulations
that prohibit private construction of protective structures or (ii) conversion of land ownership to long term or conditional leases which expire when the sea reaches a particular level
or when the property owner dies” (IPCC, 1990b, p. 6). According to the third option it is
explicated that
it would to be depend on the working of the private market. Productive crop and timber lands
may be left to slowly and progressively deteriorate as a result of salt intrusion into the groundwater or by surface flooding. Wells and surface water exposed to salt water intrusion would
gradually be abandoned [ . . . ] Under this option, governments could take the more limited role
of ensuring that all participants in potentially vulnerable areas have full knowledge about the
expected sea level rise and its associated uncertainties. Development presumably not occur if
developers, lenders and insurers were not willing to accept the risks. However, if people continue to build in vulnerable areas, governments must be prepared to take the necessary actions
to ensure public safety. (IPCC, 1990b, p. 6)
127
• Nonstructural: The simplest approach is to allow coastal resources and land uses to
naturally respond to the changing conditions. If complete inaction is unacceptable, nonstructural options can help reduce the risk to property and the environment by removing
structures and directing populations away from vulnerable areas. Resettlement can be
encouraged by regulatory and legal measures that
– require structures to be removed,
– prohibit rebuilding of structures under special circumstances (e.g., after significant
storm damage),
– prohibit private construction of bulkheads,
– establish restrictions on new development through zoning or other means in order to
reduce population concentrations.
With regard to the third response option the experts explicate that “the process of gradual
retreat from areas threatened by sea level rise may require new institutional arrangements
to coordinate various levels of governmental decision making. It will also require public
education to increase awareness for all sectors of society about both the impacts of sea level
rise and the implications of various adaptive responses” (IPCC, 1989, p. 4). Subsequently,
in the report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup (IPCC, 1990b) on strategies for
adaptation to sea level rise the elaboration on the responses were introduced as retreat,
accommodate and protection (Fig. 6.2).
Possible options in the category retreat were divided into three different classes: (i)
preventing development, (ii) allowing temporarily limited development and (iii) no direct
government role.
The first option is linked to the effort of limiting the development in vulnerable coastal
zone entirely. Consequently, government has to take precautionary arrangements such as
land acquisition, land use restriction or reduction of subsidies and incentives for the development in vulnerable coastal areas. In the second case development could take place in
accordance with the rules set by the government which could encompass “(i) regulations
that prohibit private construction of protective structures or (ii) conversion of land ownership to long term or conditional leases which expire when the sea reaches a particular level
or when the property owner dies” (IPCC, 1990b, p. 6). According to the third option it is
explicated that
it would to be depend on the working of the private market. Productive crop and timber lands
may be left to slowly and progressively deteriorate as a result of salt intrusion into the groundwater or by surface flooding. Wells and surface water exposed to salt water intrusion would
gradually be abandoned [ . . . ] Under this option, governments could take the more limited role
of ensuring that all participants in potentially vulnerable areas have full knowledge about the
expected sea level rise and its associated uncertainties. Development presumably not occur if
developers, lenders and insurers were not willing to accept the risks. However, if people continue to build in vulnerable areas, governments must be prepared to take the necessary actions
to ensure public safety. (IPCC, 1990b, p. 6)