Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Table 5.6.1: Summary of adaptation policies to reduce the vulnerability of <strong>Turks</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Caicos</strong> to SLR <strong>and</strong> SLR-induced<br />
beach erosion<br />
Protection Type Advantages<br />
Hard Engineering Defences<br />
Disadvantages<br />
Dikes, levees,<br />
- Prevents inundation - Aesthetically unpleasing<br />
1, 2<br />
embankments - Can be breeched if improperly designed<br />
- Can create vulnerabilities in other locations (e.g.<br />
further erosion downward from the dikes)<br />
- Expensive<br />
- Requires ongoing maintenance<br />
3, 4<br />
Groynes - Prevents erosion<br />
- Aesthetically unpleasing<br />
- Can increase erosion in other locations (e.g. stops<br />
long shore drift <strong>and</strong> traps s<strong>and</strong>)<br />
- Expensive<br />
Revetments 3, 4 - Prevents inundation - Aesthetically unpleasing<br />
- Less unwanted erosion - Expensive<br />
than seawalls or levees - Requires ongoing maintenance <strong>and</strong>/or replacement<br />
(temporary)<br />
Seawalls 3, 5 - Prevents inundation - Aesthetically unpleasing<br />
- Good for densely<br />
- Can be breeched if improperly designed<br />
developed areas that - Can create vulnerabilities in other locations (e.g.<br />
cannot retreat<br />
further erosion adjacent from seawalls, reflect waves<br />
causing turbulence <strong>and</strong> undercutting)<br />
- Expensive<br />
- Requires ongoing maintenance<br />
- Scouring at the base of the seawall can cause beach<br />
loss in front of the wall<br />
Structure Redesign<br />
- Less environmentally - May be technologically unfeasible <strong>and</strong> expensive for<br />
(e.g. elevate buildings, damaging compared to large larger buildings <strong>and</strong> resorts<br />
6, 7<br />
enforce foundations) scale defences<br />
- Only protects the individual structure (not<br />
- Can be completed<br />
independently of centralized<br />
management plans<br />
surrounding infrastructures such as roads)<br />
Soft Engineering Defences<br />
Beach nourishment <strong>and</strong> - Enhances slope stability - Can ruin visitor experience while nourishment is<br />
replanting of coastal - Reduces erosion<br />
occurring (e.g. restrict beach access)<br />
2, 3, 8<br />
vegetation - Preserves natural beach - Can lead to conflict between resorts<br />
aesthetics<br />
- Differential grain size causing differing rates of erosion<br />
- Provides protection for (e.g. new s<strong>and</strong> vs. natural s<strong>and</strong>)<br />
structures behind beach - Difficult to maintain (e.g. nourishment needs to be<br />
- Improves biodiversity <strong>and</strong> repeated/replenished, unsuccessful plantings)<br />
ecological health<br />
- Will not work on open coastlines (i.e. requires<br />
locations where vegetation already exists)<br />
Replant, restructure <strong>and</strong> - Enhances slope stability - Conflict among resort managers (e.g. ‘s<strong>and</strong> wars’)<br />
3, 8<br />
reshape s<strong>and</strong> dunes - Reduces erosion<br />
- Temporary (waves will continually move s<strong>and</strong>)<br />
Relocate settlements <strong>and</strong><br />
2, 9,<br />
relevant infrastructure<br />
10, 11, 12<br />
Retreat Policies<br />
- Guaranteed to reduce SLR<br />
vulnerability<br />
- Less environmental damage<br />
to coastline if no<br />
development takes place<br />
- Retains aesthetic value<br />
131<br />
- Economic costs (e.g. relocation, compensation)<br />
- Social concerns (e.g. property rights, l<strong>and</strong> use, loss of<br />
heritage, displacement)<br />
- Coordination of implementation is challenging (e.g.<br />
timing of relocation is problematic)<br />
- Concerns with ab<strong>and</strong>oned buildings<br />
Sources: 1 (Silvester & Hsu, 1993) 2 (Nicholls & Mimura, 1998) 3 (French, 2001) 4 (El Raey, Dewidar, & El Hattab, 1999)<br />
5 (Krauss & McDougal, 1996) 6 (Boateng, 2008) 7 (Lasco, Cruz, Pulhin, & Pulhin, 2006) 8 (Hamm, Capobiancob, Dettec,<br />
Lechugad, Spanhoffe, & Stivef, 2002) 9 (Fankhauser, 1995) 10 (Orlove, 2005) 11 (Patel, 2006) 12 (Barnett J. , 2005)