CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

EU Fifth Framework Research, Technology and Development Project

Environment & Sustainable Development

The CoastView Project

Initial Report on Video-Derived Coastal State
Indicators (CSIs)
Deliverables D1 (in part) & D2
Edited by Mark Davidson

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Executive Summary
The EU Framework V CoastView Project focuses on the physical problems associated with
sedimentary coasts. It is designed to simplify the task of coastal zone management through the
implementation of video-derived coastal state indicators (CSIs).
This report presents the results of the first CoastView Coastal State Indicator Workshop held in
Egmond, Netherlands on 1-3 May 2002. This workshop brought together both coastal scientists
and national-scale coastal managers in order to formulate a set of generic and site-specific videoderived CSIs.
The first workshop session set the scene by summarising the relevant background knowledge
documented in the literature and the results of other related research projects like the European
Coast3D project (MAS3-CT97-0086). Historical developments of Argus video technology and
the current state of the art were also outlined in the first session in order to give unfamiliar endusers and scientists an idea of the current capabilities of video systems on which the CoastView
project hopes to build, (See appendix).
The following workshop sessions consisted of four half-day periods devoted to each of the
CoastView field sites in Spain, Italy, Netherlands and UK. Both scientists and coastal managers
chaired these sessions. Each of these sessions were opened with a talk outlining the main coastal
zone management problems experienced both nationally and at the relevant CoastView field site.
These talks were given by national-scale coastal managers or by scientists after close conference
with managers. These talks also included an account of parameters that were currently in use for
monitoring coastal state. This was followed by a presentation by a scientist outlining the
relevant research that had been conducted at this site and the scientific perspective on the
potential for video derived CSIs. Each half-day session closed with a general discussion on
potential CSIs.
The CSI workshop was closed with a plenary session which summarised the key management
issues that are to be addressed in the CoastView project, a philosophy for defining CSIs, and a
list of relevant CSIs for each of the CoastView field sites.
This report is laid out as follows. Firstly, a brief overview of the CoastView project is given in
Section 1. The relevant background material pertaining to the interaction between science and
coastal zone management and the development of indicator theory is outlined in Section 2. An
account on advances in coastal resilience and vulnerability theory that has relevance to the
application of CSIs is given in Section 3. The emergent CoastView philosophy for deriving
CSIs is covered in Section 4. A summary of national and site specific coastal management
problems for the Spanish, Italian, Netherlands and UK sites are presented in Section 5. The CSIs
resulting from the workshop plenary session are given in Section 6. Finally, an account of future
work in the area of defining and implementing CSIs is presented in Section 7.

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Acknowledged Contributions to this report

Aart Kroon
Alberto Lamberti
Arno de Kruif
Carlo Albertazzi
David Huntley
David Marcano
Gerben Ruessink
Howard Southgate
Irv Elshoff
Jane Rawson
John Stanley
Jos A. Jimnez
Kate Bowling,
Ken Kingston
Marcel Stive
Mark Davidson
Mark van Koninigsveld
Marrije Smit
Martin Blok
Matteo Tirindelli
Nicole Zantkuijl
Paco Martin
Paolo Ciavola
R.M. Sorensen
Rob Holman
Rutger Wierda
Ruud Spanhoff
S. Andersen
Stefan Aarninkhof
Susanne Quartel
Thijs van Kessel
Troels Aagaard
Total 32
(Ordered alphabetically by Christian name)

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Contents
Executive Summary
Acknowledged contributors to this report
Contents
1. General introduction to the CoastView project. By Mark Davidson
1.1 The Problem
1.2 The CoastView Solution
2. Coastal state indicators, a bridge between science and coastal management. By Jos A.
Jimnez & Mark van Koningsveld
2.1 Abstract
2.2 Introduction
2.3 The communication process
2.4 The risk of failure. Learning from past experiences
2.5 Basic introduction to indicators
2.5.1 What is an indicator?
2.5.2 Criteria to define/select indicators
2.5.3 Qualitative indicators?
2.6 Existing frameworks for indicators
2.6.1 The systems approach
2.6.2 The pressure-state-response (PSR) model
2.6.3 The driving forces-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) approach
2.7 Aggregating indicators. An issue-oriented process
2.7.1 The aggregation problem
2.8 A final call for attention
3. Coastal Resilience and Vulnerability. By Howard N. Southgate
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Theoretical background
3.3 Applications
3.4 Relevance to coastal state indicators
4. A new context for CSIs. By David Huntley
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The overall approach
4.3 Issue based CSIs
4.4 Summary and issues for the future
5. Coastal management issues, by site:
5.1 Coastal management issues in the Netherlands. By Rutger Wierda & Ruud Spanhoff
5.1.1. Introduction
5.1.2. Dutch coastal policy and management issues
5.1.3. Policy issues, CSIs, parameters and specifications
5.2 Coastal management issues in the UK. By Jane Rawson
5.2.1. Coastal management in the UK
5.2.2. Coastal management issues at Teignmouth, Devon
5.3 Coastal management issues in Spain. By Jos A. Jimnez & Paco Martin
16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

5.3.1. A brief overview of coastal management problems in Spain

5.3.2 Coastal management problems in El Puntal
5.4 A brief overview of coastal management problems at Lido di Dante, Italy. By Alberto
Lamberti
5.4.1. Emillia-Romagna littoral conditions
5.4.2. Emillia-Romagna coastal use: benefits and problems
5.4.3. CSIs used in Emillia-Romagna
6. Resulting CSIs. By Mark Davidson
6.1 Critical Analysis
6.1.1. The consistency problem
6.1.2. A universal solution for IBCSIs?
6.2 Generic and site specific CSIs
7. Future work. By Mark Davidson
8. References
9. Appendix

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

1. General Introduction to the CoastView Project

By Mark Davidson1
The EU Framework V CoastView Project focuses on the physical problems associated with
sedimentary coasts. This project aims to simplify the task of the coastal manager who needs to
know when a valuable component of the coast is at risk, which processes are responsible, and
consequently what appropriate form of intervention (if any) is required in order to sustain or
improve the resource.
1.1 The Problem
The information currently available to the coastal manager about the physical state of the
coastline from observations, models and scientific interpretation is often too complex and
difficult to use directly. In order to assist in decision making, this complex information needs to
be delivered promptly and in a simplified form. That is, reduced to a limited set of video derived
Coastal State Indicators (CSIs) upon which management decisions and policy can be based.
Our initial working definition of a CSI is as follows: CSIs are, A reduced set of parameters that
can simply, adequately and quantitatively describe the dynamic-state and evolutionary trends
of a coastal system. The precise definition of CSIs may evolve during the course of this project.
The CoastView project aims to bridge the gap between management and science that is currently
hindering the optimum regulation and development of our coastal zones. Thus, the benefits of
using CSIs are twofold: (i) to reduce the complex reality of a coastal system and (ii) to facilitate
communications between coastal managers and scientists.
Monitoring the coastal environment currently poses two major problems to the coastal zone
managers. Firstly, the available data is not collected with sufficient frequency or for a long
enough period to fully assess the effect of short-term extreme events on long-term coastal
evolution. Secondly, the form of the currently available data is too complex to facilitate effective
coastal management.
1.2 The CoastView Solution
These problems (section 1.1) and the CoastView solutions are summarised below:
Coastal monitoring
problems

Inadequate sampling
frequency / duration

Data complexity

CoastView
solutions

Video monitoring

CSIs

The two major innovations are provided by the CoastView Project can be summarised under
these headings video monitoring and CSIs.
The first step which is summarised in this report is to bring together both scientists and managers
in order to determine an appropriate set of CSIs. Consider the example of a coastal manager who
wishes to optimise recreational use of the beach. An appropriate CSI might be a measure of
beach width. Generally for each CSI there will be a benchmark range of values (or indicator
standards) that will be tolerated without intervention, but a threshold above which intervention
will be initiated.
1

University of Plymouth, Inst. Marine Studies, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL48AA, UK

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

The next CoastView step will be to develop monitoring systems that are able to produce
frequent and reliable measurements of the chosen CSIs. The most promising systems for the
long-term monitoring of coastal regions are undoubtedly the remote video systems that are
currently under development for scientific purposes. The application of these systems to provide
undistorted plan views of the coastline; estimation of sandbar morphology and evolution,
intertidal and subaqueous topography, and coastal hydrodynamics is well documented in the
scientific literature. A central aim of the CoastView is therefore to move towards the
development of a video-based tool for coastal managers that accurately monitors the chosen
CSIs. We will focus on those typical spatial (km) and temporal (hours to years) scales of the
coastal system that are important for coastal management but are very difficult and costly to
capture by traditional in-situ measurements.
Furthermore, we intend to focus on four contrasting coastal system types, each featuring
different coastal management issues that are characteristic of Europes coastline. These sites are
summarised below in Table 1.1
Site Type
1. Continuous-undefended coastline
2. Continuous-defended coastline
3. Coastal inlet with a single bar or spit
4. Coastal inlet with multiple complex bars
Table 1.1. CoastView Field Sites

Site
Egmond, Netherlands
Lido Di Dante, Italy
El Puntal, Spain
Teignmouth, UK

Finally, we will use long-term measurement of CSIs to develop preliminary models for the
prediction of the changes to the CSIs. These models will be based on both statistical analysis of
the data and also on elements of process understanding, using measurements of forcing
parameters also provided by video systems. Coastal managers involved in the project will assess
the value of these models and assist in model enhancement.
The innovation resulting from the CoastView Project (Figure 1.1) will help towards a simplified,
cost-effective means of monitoring the coastal zone with a sampling frequency and duration that
matches the time-scale of coastal evolution. A combination of the developments in video
technology and the definition and implementation of CSIs will clarify coastal management tasks,
facilitate better resource planning, improve project designs and allow better post project
evaluation.

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

CoastView

Benefits

1) CSIs &
standards

2) Video system
for the
estimation of
CSIs

Simplified,
cost-effective
and efficient
coastal zone
management

3) Models for the

long-term
evolution of
coastal state

Identification of long-term
trends in coastal evolution
Easy assessment of the
impact of short-term
extreme events on coastal
state
Identification of erosion
hot-spots
Early warning system for
coastal flooding and
structural failure
Real time warning of
environmental hazards
Effective project planning
Post project evaluation
Assessment of structural
integrity

Figure 1.1 CoastView innovations and benefits.

16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

2. Coastal state indicators a bridge between science and coastal management

By Jos A. Jimnez2 and Mark van Koningsveld3.1 Abstract
2.1 Abstract
One of the primary aims of the CoastView Project is to develop a set of Coastal State Indicators
(CSI) in support of coastal zone management. This topic addresses a common problem in many
projects theoretically oriented to provide help for decision-making in coastal management, viz.
the communication breakdown between scientists and managers.
CoastView identifies this communication process as the first cornerstone to achieve the targeted
objectives and, as a consequence, a continuous interaction between managers and scientists has
been established from the start of the project. As a second cornerstone the use of indicators is a
simple and useful manner to develop a common language for the efficient transfer of scientific
information to management and policy problems.
Indicators have become a state-of-the-art tool in many fields where the final goal is the
implementation (or the assessment of the progress) of management or policy plans. As a result
there is ample knowledge on indicator theory, although its application to coastal issues is not
common. The examples that are available are at a very aggregated level within more global
issues (e.g. sustainability analysis) or addressing specific issues without using the existing
knowledge on coastal dynamics (e.g. geoindicators).
CoastView will fill this gap by the development of Coastal State Indicators, applying state-ofthe-art knowledge in coastal dynamics as well as indicator development. This paper presents
some basic knowledge on indicators and main supporting frameworks to optimise their use.
2.2. Introduction
Coastal managers have a continuous need for information related to the system under their
control. Primary components of the coastal system are the natural subsystem and the
anthropogenic (socio economic and administrative) subsystem (cf. Van der Weide, 1993). Main
interest for coastal management is to maintain the sustainable interaction between the two
subsystems. With increasing socio-economic pressures, these interactions should be controlled
properly. Any discrepancy between the actual and desired state of the coastal system, defines a
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) problem. The general objective of CZM is to prevent and
mitigate these problems. Obtaining this objective, coastal managers often call upon specialists
for system state descriptions, intervention development, impact assessment and reduction of
uncertainties. Required specialist knowledge may be gathered through studies or developed in
research projects.
Feelings rather than facts often trigger coastal management initiatives. Whether or not something
is perceived as a problem depends on the problem owners frame of reference. Initial analysis is
required to further define the actual problem and an approach towards this problem (Mulder et
al., 2001). Values and interests, at stake in coastal management projects, are guiding for the
ideal frame of reference suggested by Van Koningsveld and Mulder (2002).
Determination of these values and interests through some form of public debate, is the
responsibility of politics.
2

CIIRC, Laboratori dEnginyeria Martima, Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya

(jose.jimenez@upc.es).
3
University of Twente, WL| Delft Hydraulics (mark.vankoningsveld@wldelft.nl)
16/11/02

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

For measurability of intervention impacts (e.g. large scale sand mining) on the values present in
the system, the detailing process should ideally be aimed at deriving one or more quantifiable
aspects, also referred to as indicators or criteria. Systematic and reproducible identification of
these quantifiable aspects, requires system knowledge and insight in the cause effect chain
expressed in terms of governing processes.
The definition of quantifiable aspects is a typical arena where coastal science and
coastal management meets.
Choosing between quantifiable aspects is a responsibility of politics.
Suggesting practical quantifiable aspects is a responsibility of science.
Figure 2.1 graphically represents the area of potential interaction between coastal management
and coastal science. The complexity of the problem, as shown in Figure 2.1, lies in the proper
solving of the questions addressed at each level (enough knowledge and inherent uncertainty) as
well as in the generation of useful knowledge and its proper transfer between levels. This
makes the management of highly dynamic systems, in which interactions between natural and
anthropogenic components determine the final system status, a very complicated task.
Management objective

Concrete
(Detail)

Process chain

Themes
Aspects
Subaspects


Indicators /
Criteria

Concrete
(Detail)

Abstract
(Aggregate)

Quantifiable
aspects

Abstract
(Aggregate)

Policy
VALUES
And
INTERESTS

Processes
System

Science

Figure 2.1.
Schematic representation of the ideal frame of reference (Van
Koningsveld and Mulder, 2002).
One approach to solve this intrinsic management difficulty is by so called adaptive management.
This approach is based on the concept of learning by doing where management actions are
viewed as experiments to produce crucial information about the managed resources (e.g. Walters
and Holling, 1990; Johnson, 1999). Theoretically, this approach continually reduces uncertainty,
thus providing a increasing base of knowledge and experience to manage the system more
effectively.
Another approach, more ambitious from a scientific point of view, considers all the links
between components/elements as targets to be covered and solved. An example of this can be
found in Capobianco et al. (1999), where a full integrated approach to coastal systems is
suggested. The authors, however, do not put the approach into practice and whether the approach
is realistic or not remains as yet uncertain.
The aforementioned approaches represent two extremes. Between these extremes we can find a
third, more usual approach in which the analysed system is not fully reproduced but only so far
as to obtain the most important information useful for management/policy implementations. In
this case it is necessary to generate the required knowledge and properly transfer it. This
16/11/02

10

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

approach has been successfully applied in e.g. environmental assessments, vulnerability analyses
and sustainable development analyses. Independent of the addressed topic, a recurring issue is
the use of a common way of communication in which scientific knowledge is transferred to the
level of decision makers by means of indicators.
The CoastView project, applies the third approach and may be considered as one of the first
attempts use system knowledge addressing coastal problems at the coastal management level.
Previous studies have included processes and changes in the coastal zone, but not at the level
envisaged here. Some large scale studies included coastal processes as a small part of a more
global problem, in vulnerability assessments for instance (e.g. Kaly et al., 1998). In these cases
the indicators were mainly aggregated and useful for coarse, large-scale analyses only. Some
smaller scale studies also provide examples in which the implications of coastal dynamics for
management have been addressed by means of indicators (e.g. Snchez-Arcilla et al., 1998;
Valdemoro et al., 2001). In these cases, however, without developing them into a generic
framework. Between these two, an intermediate scale approach, based on the use of
geoindicators, studies the implications of coastal processes for coastal management in a way
similar to the approaches used in environmental assessments (e.g. Berger, 1997a; Bush et al.,
1999; Morton, 2002). This last approach, however, addresses these issues from a more or less
qualitative standpoint, in the sense that it does not properly include the existing body of
knowledge on coastal dynamics and coastal behaviour. The CoastView project aims to fill this
gap.
The aim of this paper is to discuss some basic ideas behind (i) the communication between
coastal managers and scientists and (ii) the development of indicators to efficiently transfer the
scientific information on management/policies problems in a simple and useful manner. The
former is addressed discussing an analysis of the effectiveness of different coastal research
projects, including some funded by the EU. The latter is addressed discussing general indicator
theory and existing frameworks for environmental assessment.
2.3. The Communication Process
Although applied research programs are often granted based on practical relevance, only a few of
previous research projects on coastal behaviour have actually attempted to translate the
developed knowledge into relevant information for coastal management, and often with limited
success.
The EU demonstration projects on Integrated Coastal Zone Management ICZM (EU, 1999), for
instance, have signalled this problem and the end users involved, identified as potential causes:

The lack of consideration/contact with potential customers for the research results and an
assessment of their needs at an early stage;
An unwillingness among academics to consider practical and workable approaches in
applying science to simple situations.

If we approach to the problem from the other end, i.e. from the scientists view, a different
perspective is detected. Lets take as an example the recently finished COAST3D research
project, aimed at improved measurement and modelling of physical coastal processes (cf.
Soulsby, 1998), where one of the objectives was to deliver validated modelling tools, and
methodologies for their use, in a form suitable for coastal zone management. From the onset of
COAST3D governmental agencies the end users participating in the COAST3D project
continuously stimulated researchers to demonstrate the usefulness of their tools for Coastal Zone
16/11/02

11

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Management, again with limited success. In this case the researchers involved, identified as a
cause:

The inability of coastal managers to formulate questions that unambiguously lead to

answers covering the actual information need.

The above suggested causes illustrate opposing views on potential directions for improvement of
the relevance of research. Coastal managers feel that it is difficult to apply the results of research
or studies to policy formulation and practical management problems and feel that specialists
should make an effort. The researchers, on the other hand, feel that on the scientific level
significant progress has been made and the end users should make an effort. These opposing
views constitute what is commonly referred to as a gap between coastal science and coastal
management.
2.4. The Risk of Failure. Learning from Past Experiences
Van Koningsveld et al. (2002) analyse 14 research programmes to illustrate this gap between end
users and developers of knowledge. The period of years over which these research programs run
is long enough for the consequences of this gap to (eventually) surface. In this case the
consequences consist of a diverging perception between end users and researchers on what
knowledge should be developed within a particular research program. In fact the consequences
of this gap may be the most obvious in long-range research programmes, but they may also be
recognised in other types of projects or research projects with a shorter life span. There are many
examples available of research reports that remain unused, or even unread, and research outputs
that in the perception of researchers provide an answer to the question, but that the end user is
unable to use or recognise as a solution to his/her problem.
The gap between coastal science and coastal management is often described as a knowledge
gap or a communication gap and a commonly suggested way to bridge this gap is through
improved communication (e.g. EU, 1999). But what exactly is to be improved? The analysis by
Van Koningsveld et al. (2002) shows that the gap may in fact best be characterised as a
relevance gap and we should improve the communication on what is relevant information,
relevant knowledge. Of course, the relevance of information or knowledge is a matter of
perception. Not all knowledge that is scientifically relevant (long term), is also practically
relevant (short term). Currently, the content of research programmes is mainly driven by
researchers aiming for scientific relevance (see 2.2).
Driver / end user input

Increased gap
Content research program

Researcher input
Time

Figure 2.2. Unbalanced drive (Van Koningsveld et al., 2002).

Differences in pace between R&D and application trigger an increasing difference in perception
of what is relevant. This explains the growing dissatisfaction of research drivers. When the

16/11/02

12

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

difference in perception becomes too large, this may result in intervention in the program itself
or a different focus in following programs.
Suggested solution
Mulder et al. (2001) attribute the difficulty of translating the knowledge to end users to the lack
of end users involvement in driving the content during the programmes (see 2.2). The resulting
emphasis on scientifically relevant information makes an ex-post translation of the research
results difficult, if not impossible. To improve this situation they suggest to establish a more
balanced drive (see Figure 2.3). To make this suggestion operational they present a methodology
for the development of a frame of reference based on the analysis of policy documents and
interviews, which helps to identify knowledge gaps that match the need of end users related to a
particular problem. End users, as well as researchers, are stimulated throughout the project to
indicate their progress in broadening or detailing this frame of reference. Quantifiable aspects
(criteria, indicators, etc.) play a crucial role in this methodology as they represent an area of
potential interaction between coastal management and coastal science (see 2.1). As such the
method provides handles to design the content and the process of ongoing programs so as to
combine practice-oriented research with curiosity-driven research so as to obtain a more
balanced drive of the research program (see Figure 2.3). This method is currently being applied
in the CoastView project.
Driver / end user input

Content research program

Researcher input
Time

Figure 2.3. More balanced drive (Van Koningsveld et al., 2002).

The application of the methodology for a balanced drive is a necessary but insufficient condition
for success. Obviously willingness to co-operate, an open atmosphere and a flexible attitude are
also required to provide a favourable context. Individual personalities, research management and
finance regimes can either stimulate or impede the development of such a context.
2.5. Basic Introduction to Indicators
2.5.1 What is an indicator?
During the last decades, indicators have been widely applied to a variety of topics such as
environmental assessment, economy, sustainable development, vulnerability assessment, etc. As
a result of this diversity of applications, the different topics involved and the different
approaches and scales of application, it is hard to produce a single definition of the term
indicator. Gallopn (1997) compiles different definitions of indicators given in the literature on
environmental assessment that illustrate the different existing approaches. Thus, an indicator
has been simply defined as a variable; a parameter; a measure; a statistical measure; a proxy
for a measure; a value; a fraction comparing a quantity with a scientifically or arbitrarily chosen
measure; something; a piece of information; a single quantity derived from one variable and used
to reflect some attribute; an empirical model of reality; a sign.
16/11/02

13

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

When we look for a more complete definition we can also find different definitions (Gallopn,
1997) such as a variable hypothetically linked to the variable studied which itself cannot be
directly observed; a measure that summarises information relevant to a particular phenomenon,
or a reasonable proxy for such a measure; a parameter, or a value derived from parameters,
which
points
to/provides
information
about/describes
the
state
of
a
phenomenon/environment/area with a significance extending beyond that directly associated
with a parameter value; a measure of system behaviour in terms of meaningful and perceptible
attributes.
Taking into account these different perspectives and the final goal of their use, in general
terms, an indicator can be defined as a sign that relays a complex message in a simple
and useful manner (e.g. Gallopn, 1997; Kurtz et al., 2001).
This definition has been implicitly assumed by CoastView in the sense that it defines indicators Coastal State Indicators, CSIs- as a reduced set of parameters (the sign or signs) that can simply,
adequately and quantitatively describe the dynamic-state and evolutionary trends of a coastal
system (relay a complex message in a simple and useful manner).
The indicators should provide three main functions: simplification, quantification and
communication. In this sense, they are becoming an essential part of the communication process
between scientists and managers (see above) and a way to reduce the risk of failure of such a
process (see above). Indicators are state-of-the-art tools in many existing frameworks
(environmental policy, sustainability analysis, etc.) and they are considered to be crucial due to
the important role they play in the decision-making cycle (see e.g. Gutirrez-Espeleta, 1998).
When we focus on environmental indicators, and CSIs can be considered as specific
environmental indicators, their major functions are:

to assess the condition of the environment

to monitor trends in conditions over time

to compare across situations

to provide an early warning signal of changes in the environment

to diagnose the cause of an environmental problem

to anticipate future conditions and trends
2.5.2 Criteria to define/select indicators
The selection of indicators is a key element in the communication process and the effective
support of the decision-making cycle, which in the CoastView framework is referred to as
Coastal Management. Thus, Dale and Beyeler (2001) identify as one of the major challenges to
determine which of the numerous measures characterise the entire system, yet are simple enough
to be efficiently monitored and modelled.
Following previous works in the development of environmental indicators (e.g. Kelly and
Harwell, 1990; Cairns et al., 1993; Pykh et al., 1999; Jackson et al., 2000; Dale et al., 2001), it is
possible to identify some basic criteria that CSIs must fulfil to be useful and consistent. Next, we
briefly introduce these criteria, emphasising their implications for the selection of indicators in
CoastView.

Be relevant.
It must be demonstrated that the proposed indicator is conceptually linked to the coastal function
of concern. This link has to be of first-order, i.e. it is not only a matter that a variable takes part
16/11/02

14

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

in the process but that it is significantly contributing to it. This requires a scale analysis, in which
key variables/processes/responses are selected according to the significance of their role in the
coastal function at the proper scale.
Let us take as an example the selection of indicators related to coastal protection, which involves
the identification of variables and processes taking part in beach changes. The presence of
ripples is an indication of some aspects of the sediment transport regime and in this sense of
some characteristics of the system behaviour. At the scale of interest (the management timescale), however, it is clear that the presence of ripples can be considered as noise and, in
consequence will not be relevant.
Be easily measured.
The indicator should be straightforward and relatively inexpensive to be measured. This also
includes requirements such as meeting data quality objectives (whatever they are) and being
consistent with the process/variable of interest, e.g. it makes no sense to determine beach width
with a precision of mm, since this precision does not imply a better characterisation of the
system response.

This has direct implications with respect to CoastView. Thus, the use of video images in coastal
monitoring is a relatively cost effective technique taking into account its spatial and temporal
coverage (e.g. Holman et al., 1993; Aarninkhof and Holman, 1999).
Regarding accuracy of the employed technique, there are variables that are easily measured
using video images with a high accuracy as e.g. the waterline -and from here the actual beach
width-, intertidal bathymetry, beach morphodynamic state, swash oscillations, etc. On the other
hand, there are variables that have been identified as potential indicators that at present can not
be measured with the required accuracy, e.g. subtidal bathymetry, current intensity, wave height,
etc. This restriction cannot be considered as a lack, since one of the objectives of CoastView is to
develop methods to derive these variables from video images with the appropriate level of
accuracy.

Be sensitive to stresses on the system.

The indicator should be responsive to stresses on the system. Applied to ecological indicators,
the ideal situation would be an indicator that is sensitive to stresses due to human actions while
having limited and documented sensitivity to natural variation (Dale and Beyeler, 2001).
When this is applied to CSIs, it has a series of implications. Thus, one of the intrinsic
characteristics of the coastal zone (and for any environmental issue in general) is that it is a
highly dynamic system, and, in consequence, it will be necessary to live with it, i.e. any
selected indicator will have a natural-induced source of variation and a human-induced one.
The key point will be the identification and isolation of each component from gathered data (see
discussion in Chapter 5).

Have a known response to disturbances, anthropogenic stresses, and changes over time.
The indicator should have a well-documented reaction to both natural disturbance and to
anthropogenic stresses on the system. This means that any variable or characteristic of the
system can only be used as an indicator provided that there is a scientifically sound pattern of
response. In other words, to simplify a system we need to know which are the elements of the
system and how do these react to stress.

16/11/02

15

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

For CSIs this is not a major constraint, since CoastView is making use of all the existing
knowledge on coastal dynamics and, in consequence, for any variable being considered as a CSI,
there is a sound knowledge about their response (in time and space) to stresses (natural and
anthropogenic ones).

Be anticipatory.
A change in the indicator should be measurable before substantial change in the targeted
objective occurs. This implies the selection or definition of a threshold which serves as a
warning signal to indicates the changes.
This aspect has been carefully considered in CoastView from the scientific standpoint
(knowledge on system functioning) and from the management standpoint (through discussions
with managers to define/select thresholds usually employed in management practices to detect
the warning signal for a given coastal function).

Be integrative.
The full suite of indicators provides a measure of the key gradients across the analysed system
(change in the system state in time and space). Moreover it must be possible to aggregate in
order to generate an issue-oriented indicator.
In coastal issues this is not only a criteria to be fulfilled by indicators but the common way of
approaching to coastal processes. Thus, the issue of temporal and spatial integration of coastal
processes and responses has been largely identified as a key task in analysing coastal dynamics
at scales useful for coastal management purposes (e.g. de Vriend, 1991; de Vriend et al., 1994).
Due to this, any CSI derived/selected in CoastView will implicitly have this characteristic and,
since the final goal will be the derivation of issue-oriented indicators, the aggregation of
individual indicators has to be assured.

Other criteria
In addition to the above cited basic criteria, we can find additional ones that have been imposed
in different approaches such as:
a. Be user-driven
b. Be simple and easily understood by the target audience
c. Be scientifically credible
d. Be responsive to changes in time and space
In the CoastView context, criteria a and b are covered in the aggregation process, i.e. when
individual indicators are aggregated to characterise a specific coastal function with a clear
management purpose.
Criteria c is mainly imposed when the objective of the analysis is not only the assessment of
physical or ecological system functioning (which needs to be covered following a well-founded
scientific perspective) but also involves additional issues subjected to very different ways of
approaching such as sustainability analysis (where subjectivity can play a determinant role).
Criteria d is intrinsic to any variable to be considered as a CSI and in consequence, there is no
way to avoid it.
2.5.3 Qualitative indicators?
With the aforementioned criteria, it seems that referring to indicators we have to restrict to
quantitative ones since their main goal objective is to quantify aspects of the system functioning.
16/11/02

16

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

In fact, either explicitly or implicitly, most of the existing frameworks only consider quantitative
indicators.
In many cases, the use of qualitative indicators is only an extremely-aggregated approach to
the problem in which the system functioning is over-simplified. An example of this, applied to
coastal risks, can be seen in Malvrez-Garca et al. (2000). They derive a measurement of the
coastal sensitivity by aggregating several (6) variables, with most of them being simply
qualitative, although they convert to quantitative by assigning them some rank order (e.g. the
variable lithology ranges from plutonic highly metamorphized rocks very low risk to sands
very high risk ).
In spite of this, it should be possible to find some attributes of the system that are difficult to
quantify while providing useful information to characterise the system behaviour. One example
of potential qualitative indicators applied to coastal functions that can be easily derived from
video images is the beach morphodynamic state. In essence, the beach morphodynamic state is
the aggregated beach response to incoming wave (and tidal) energy, in such a way that ideally
any beach state is associated (in a dynamic equilibrium) to specific hydrodynamic conditions
such as nearshore current patterns. Since current type and intensity are factors affecting the
safety of beach users, it is possible to consider this qualitative information as a potential
indicator for beach safety (e.g. Chapman, 1992). In fact, in the Australian Beach Safety and
Management Program, beach morphodynamics is considered as a variable to take into account in
the analysis of safety conditions for beaches. Of course, if the variables directly controlling
beach safety (e.g. rip current intensity and location) can be quantitatively measured it has no
meaning to use the qualitative information, although a combination of this qualitative variable
beach state with a quantitative variable wave height has been proven to serve for this purpose
(Short and Hogan, 1994).

2.6. Frameworks for indicators

The usefulness of the indicators to be developed can be increased by putting them into a
framework in which main relationships between human activity and environment are considered
since one of their major functions is to link the system functioning to management policies.
There are numerous models of such relationships (Hodge, 1997), being the most common (and
useful) approaches based on the concepts of environmental stress and environmental response.
In most of the cases, they are derived from the stress-response framework proposed by Rapport
and Friend (1979) to be applied to ecosystems. They have been adopted and adapted by many
agencies for environmental and/or sustainable development assessment (e.g. UNEP, UNCSD,
OECD). One of the most used adaptations of this stress-response approach is the Pressure-StateResponse, PSR, model (details given below) which in some cases is also called the Driving
force-State-Response framework mainly when the main focus is on sustainable development.
Eurostat and the European Environment Agency have adopted a generalised stress-response
framework, the Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response, DPSIR, model which better
describes other elements such as sectoral trends, economic trends, etc. (e.g. Jesinghaus, 1999)
and that can be considered as an extension of the PSR model.
2.6.1 The systems approach
Basic to these models is a systems approach as a means to structure complex problems. A system
diagram that is generically applicable to coastal zones is presented in Figure 2.4. Primary
components of this diagram are the natural subsystem and the anthropogenic (man made)
16/11/02

17

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

subsystem. The former includes all components of the abiotic and biotic environment in terms of
its structure and internal processes. The latter describes in the same way the man made
environment. The cornerstone of the diagram is the interaction between these two subsystems.
The system diagram is a useful tool in the problem analysis and problem solving and it serves as
a base for models to simulate system behaviour. The system analogy is also useful to show the
interrelation between the various sciences. The natural subsystem is the field of natural sciences
whereas social sciences are required to describe the anthropogenic subsystem. Both are needed
to formulate and assess the interactions between the two components, in support of decision
making.
The interactions between the two main system components are manifold and encompass a
multitude of aspects. They can be clustered into the following main categories:

Natural hazards, the negative impact of nature on the man made environment.
Resource use, the use of space and renewable or non renewable natural resources for social
and economic activities
Environmental impacts, the negative impact of these activities on the functions of nature,
i.e. the production of renewable resources and the regulation of vital processes.

Natural system

Natural
subsystem
Infrastructure
Natural
resources Human
impact C
and
hazards

Data

Data
User
functions

System
authority

Regulation

Socio-economic system

Figure 2.4. Systems view of the coastal zone (Van der Weide, 1993).
With increasing demographic pressures, these interactions may lead to conflicts, which should be
controlled properly. This is shown in the third subsystem, the institutional subsystem. This
subsystem contains all the enabling mechanisms and instruments required for a proper
management. Enabling instruments, such as legislation, and institutional arrangements have to be
developed to that end. This is where political science enters the picture.
Obviously this system analogy can be applied for different spatial scales. At the largest scale,
Donella and Meadows (1972, 1992) apply a system analogy of the whole world, but in most
instances, the system only represents part of this world. In order to account for the interaction
with the outside world, cross border effects have to be included in the system description in that
case.
16/11/02

18

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

2.6.2 The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) Model

Because CoastView can be considered as a specific case of environmental assessment, the most
used framework for this kind of analysis, the PSR model, is briefly presented. This framework
helps to analyse the interactions between environmental pressures, the state of the environment
and environmental responses and it is based on the concept of causality (Figure 2.5): human
activities exert pressures on the environment and change it (state) and Society responds to these
changes through environmental and economic responses (societal responses).

STATE
observable changes
of the environment

PRESSURE
human activities
affecting the
environment

RESPONSE
societal response
to solve the problem

Figure 2.5. The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model (compare Fig. 2.4).

Table 2.1 shows a classical application of the PSR approach to Environmental Assessment
whereas a potential application of the framework for environmental assessment related to coastal
issues relevant to CoastView objectives- is shown in Table 2.2.
Lets suppose that we are performing an analysis on Environmental Policy and we have to
select indicators for accounting climate change based on the use of the PSR model. A
possible approach should be
Pressure:
State:
Response:

CO2 emissions due to anthropogenic activities

rise of global temperature
introduction of taxes for fossil-based sources of energy
Table 2.1. Example of application of the PSR model.

Lets suppose that we are interested in the development of indicators addressing the issue of
Coastal Protection based on the use of the PSR model. From all the possible factors we are
mainly interested in effects of the presence of harbours on coastal protection. A possible
approach should be
Pressure:
State:
Response:

alongshore sediment transport blockage by marinas

coastal erosion downcoast of harbours
commitment to install by-pass systems
Table 2.2. Example of application of the PSR model in coastal issues.

16/11/02

19

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

One of the weaknesses of this approach is that in the classical applications, it implicitly assumes
that rapid changes in the environment are due to anthropogenic activities since pressure only
considers human activities affecting the environment. This reflects what Berger (1997b) calls
anthropoblamism, a typical way of thinking of some ecological schools that charge major
changes in landscape and ecosystems only to human activities and that believe that without the
human influence, ecosystems will be in an undisturbed state.
In spite of this, the PSR is a powerful approach for environmental assessment although two main
difficulties have been identified to properly reflect the condition of the environment when the
preconception mentioned above is not assumed (Berger and Hodge, 1998). The first problem is
that the environment at any time is reflecting human influences and background natural
processes and, in some cases, it will be difficult to distinguish each contribution. Moreover,
although policies must be generally directed to human actions, they cannot ignore the impact of
the natural processes on the condition of the environment. The second problem is that even in the
case that natural and human stresses can be identified, the response to any stress (natural or
anthropogenic) may itself be a stress on another element of the system.
In any case, as stated previously, due to the characteristics of the coastal system we have to
live with these problems, as coastal processes are affected by human-induced and natural
stresses and any management action (policy response) on the system will represent an additional
stress on some components of it. In this sense, we have to consider that although CoastView is
mainly dealing with physics-related issues, the coast is a multi-component system where the
different components (physical, ecological, socio-economic) are linked in a complex way with
many feedback loops.
Analysing the CoastView approach (see Working Programme and main conclusions of the first
CSI Workshop, this report) we can clearly identify the adoption of the PSR framework with the
advantage that due to the heavy involvement of the partnership in coastal dynamics studies (not
directly oriented to environmental assessment) it assumes the above mentioned problems as part
of the process.
One difference of the CoastView approach with respect to classical environmental assessments is
that it initially stops after the P-S steps because indicators are derived to characterise the driving
forces and coastal states (coastal function of interest) but not explicitly the response. However,
since the main aim of the two covered steps is to support coastal management, it will be
relatively easy to include specific indicators to characterise the response, i.e. to track the
management policies. Table 2.3 shows an example (similar to the shown in Table 2.2) of the
application of the generalised PSR framework in coastal issues that CoastView can potentially
address.
Development of indicators addressing the issue of Coastal Protection based on the use of
the PSR model in its generalised form.
Pressure:
State:
Response:

alongshore sediment transport blockage by marinas (anthropogenic)

storm induced erosion (natural)
coastal erosion downcoast of harbours (both factors synergistically acting)
commitment to install by-pass systems (only for the anthropogenic stress)
Measured e.g. by annual by-pass costs

Table 2.3. Example of application of the PSR model in coastal issues.

16/11/02

20

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

2.6.3 The Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach

As it was introduced before, the DPSIR framework is an extension of the PSR model developed
by the EU where socio-economic effects were explicitly included as impacts, resulting in the
acronym DPSIR (EAA, 1998). The approach is shown schematically in the flow diagram of 2.6.

STATE
observable changes
of the environment

PRESSURE

IMPACT

human activities
affecting the
environment

effects of a changed
environment

DRIVING FORCES
basic sectoral
trends

RESPONSE
societal response
to solve the problem

Figure 2.6. The Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model (compare Fig.

2.5).

The two additional elements included in this model with respect to the PSR approach are
driving forces and impacts. Where Driving forces (D) are the basic sectoral trends contributing
to the pressures (P) and Impacts (I) make explicit which are the effects of the changes of the
environment, state (S).
The advantages of this framework with respect to the PSR one is that the inclusion of driving
forces allows to isolate in the analysis the contribution of a specific sector, whereas in the PSR
this was not so explicit. At the same time, the inclusion of the impact permits the separation of
the change of the environment itself from its practical consequences.
This improvement in the description of the system is highlighted in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 that
correspond to the same examples given for the PSR framework in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
For instance in the example of Table 2.4 we are now discriminating which sector is under
consideration when we analyse the changes due to an increase in CO2 emissions and, at the same
time, we translate the change of the environment (rise in the temperature) to a specific effect of
such change (floods). Moreover, the proposed or suggested response is also specific for the
considered sector.
Lets suppose that we are performing an analysis on Environmental Policy and we have to
select indicators for accounting climate change based on the use of the DPSIR model.
Driving force: energy generation
Pressure:
CO2 emissions
State:
rise of global temperature
Impact:
floods (or any other effects of the changed state)
Response:
introduction of taxes for fossil-based sources of energy
Table 2.4. Example of application of the DPSIR model to the case of Table 2.1.
16/11/02

21

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Lets suppose that we are interested in the development of indicators addressing the issue of
Coastal Protection based on the use of the DPSIR model. From all the possible factors we
are mainly interested in effects of the presence of harbours on coastal protection.
Driving force:
Pressure:
State:
Impact:
Response:

tourism
alongshore sediment transport blockage by marinas
coastal erosion downcoast of harbours
decrease in useful beach subaerial surface
commitment to install by-pass systems

Table 2.5. Example of application of the DPSIR model to the case of Table 2.2.
Like PSR, the DPSIR model is based in the concept of causality and it addresses the interactions
between the natural and anthropogenic sub systems in terms of a cascade of sequential causes
and effects. This interaction is quantified in three steps. Firstly the driving forces (D) and
associated pressures (P) resulting from relevant socio-economic sectors are quantified.
Subsequently their impacts on the state (S) of the natural system are determined. Finally the
impact (I) of these changes on the living conditions of man is assessed. When the state of the
environment and the effects for society are exceeding acceptable values a policy response (R) is
required. Van der Weide and Van Koningsveld (2002) applied this method to the issue of
Integrated Coastal Management giving practical guidelines on how to apply it in real-world
cases.
The similarities of the PSR and DPSIR frameworks means that all the concerns expressed for
PSR are also valid for DPSIR as well as the implications regarding CoastView.
2.7. Aggregating Indicators. An Issue-Oriented Process
2.7.1 The aggregation problem
Once we have selected an adequate set of indicators and a consistent analytical framework, we
still have to face the matter of answering the questions required by the manager.
Lets take the example of a manager interested in coastal protection issues along the area
subjected to his/her decisions, who asks us for some help. In this case, the manager is not waiting
to know the values of all possible indicators, as he/she is only interested in a single/simple
answer to a single/simple question, is my coast at risk?
In other words, the manager is waiting for a value accounting the aggregation of indicators with
similar impacts (following the DPSIR model) or with similar states (following the PSR model).
This issue/user-driven value obtained by aggregating a set of indicators is generally called an
index in the context of environmental indicators3. Hereinafter, when the term index is used, we
are referring to an aggregation of indicators for a targeted function.
Although to efficiently transfer the required information to the manager a high degree of
aggregation is necessary, the knowledge of desegregated values are also essential in order to
decide possible responses.

It has to be taken into account that given the disparity of ways to name the here called indicators there are some
works where the term index is equivalent to an indicator.

16/11/02

22

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Thus, after giving a quantitative answer to the question is my coast at risk?, as e.g. yes, at level z
in scale of x to y, probably another question will appear in the game that has to be solved to
properly make decisions: which is the contribution of each factors to such risky situation? Of
course, to solve this second question desegregated information is required. Following the DPSIR
approach (Figure 2.6), this is equivalent to knowing the contribution of each driving force (D) to
the impact (I). This will avoid some problems found in aggregating indicators into a single value
where positive contributions can hide small but qualitatively (more) important negative
ones, giving a final score in which no potential negative effects are detected (e.g. Suter, 1993).
Essentially the index must reflect the nature of the problem, i.e. it must characterise the targeted
functioning of the coastal system for a specific issue (e.g. coastal protection), as a function of the
key variables involved, i.e. the indicators, (e.g. beach width) taking into account the inherent
dynamics of the coastal system (e.g. beach width variations). This means that the way of
aggregation of the indicators (or metrics) must ideally be based on a good knowledge of the
role played by each indicator in determining the targeted system functioning.
Many different types of metrics do exist to integrate the indicators and, since the final result is
largely dependent on the selected method, this integration/aggregation task is one of the hot
issues in indicators research. In essence, the aggregation method should be as simple as possible
although the real constraint is that the selected method has to be straightforward and
understandable by the decision maker. Some approaches are: arithmetic mean, weighted average,
multivariate statistics, fuzzy logic, conceptual models (e.g. Andreasen et al., 2001).
From all these methods, the most realistic is the development of conceptual models. The
advantage of this technique is that the index is obtained through an issue-oriented way of
aggregation based on the system functioning for the targeted issue. This means that the coastal
function of interest is modelled in a simple way by connecting the different indicators involved
through simple relationships trying to simulate the interactions they show in the reality. In fact,
this exercise has to be done to properly select the indicators playing any role in the analysed
coastal function. Another advantage is that the method is very versatile and it permits the
combination of indicators of very different nature and of different time scales.
As an example, Jimnez and Cceres (2002) have developed an index addressed to the coastal
protection issue focussed on the estimation of the vulnerability of coastal infrastructures in sandy
beaches. The index was obtained through the construction of a conceptual model that reproduces
in a simple manner the links between the variables/indicators playing a role in determining the
response of sandy coasts that can affect coastal infrastructures placed on the beach. It comprises
the use of variables/indicators of different nature (measurements, data analysis, model) and
time-scales (see Table 2.6). The index also includes a threshold selected as a function of the
considered issue which is based on the managers interest and in this case it has to be selected by
the manager with the advice of the scientist.

16/11/02

23

CoastView, Nov-02

Variable
Actual beach width
Long-term shoreline rate of
displacement
Shoreline fluctuations due to
CST
Shoreline erosion under storms
Minimum beach width
(threshold)

CSI Report

Type
Data measurement
Data analysis

t-scale
Instantaneous
Long-term

Data analysis

Short-term

Model derived
Manager choice

Episodic
Steady across scales

Table 2.6. Characteristics of the main variables involved in the development of an index for
vulnerability of coastal infrastructures in sandy beaches (Jimnez and Cceres, 2002).
Huntley (2002, Section 4 of this report) approaches the issue of the development of CSIs from
the scientific and managerial standpoints and this can be considered as the first step to define the
conceptual models to be built for each coastal function of interest. In this sense, Davidson (2002,
Section 6 of this report) makes a first identification of the main indicators playing an important
role in the targeted coastal functions for each CoastView study site.
Finally, we have to consider that one of the problems that we have to face is that policyimplementation is in most of the cases a multi-objective issue in such a way that we have to
answer several questions simultaneously. Moreover, as it was showed in Section 5.1 the coastal
zone is a multi-component system where interactions within components and between
components are numerous and complex. This means that acting or making decisions on one
specific issue (coastal function) can affect (and probably will do) other ones.
All of this adds complexity to the problem, in such a way that to answer one specific question,
other questions, not specifically raised, have to be solved also.
Lets formalise the problem in a very simple case where a manager wants to make decisions on a
given coast X, where three main functions have been identified: coastal protection (P), tourism
(T) and environment/ecology (E). This implies that to characterise the system we should have to
derive three indexes for each function XP, XT and XE.
Lets start by the coastal protection function. The index, XP, at time t (we are deriving a timedepending tool) will be a function of some CSIs (also time dependent):
XPt = f (CSI i,t; i=1,....m)

[1]

This index will facilitate decisions on coastal protection (in this case we are assuming that it is an
independent issue). When we approach to the tourism function we have to evaluate at time t an
index XT that is a function of some CSIs but also of the previously derived XPt index, i.e. to
make decisions on tourism, coastal protection is also a variable to be taken into account:
XTt = g (CSI j,t; j=1,....n; XPt)

[2]

where substituting [1] in [2]:

XTt = g (CSI j,t; j=1,....n; CSI i,t; i=1,....m)

16/11/02

[3]

24

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Finally, the coastal environment issue is characterised by an index XE at time t that it is a

function of some CSIs but is also a function of the previously derived XPt and XTt indexes, i.e. to
make decisions on environment, coastal protection and tourism have to be also considered:
XEt = h (CSI k,t, k=1,....p; XPt; XTt)

[4]

where substituting [1], [2] in [4]:

XEt = h (CSI k,t, k=1,....p; CSI j,t; j=1,....n; CSI i,t; i=1,....m)

[5]

This aggregation of all the relevant indicators into one index is one of the oldest disputes of
indicator theory: should we aggregate apples and oranges? (Jesinghaus, 1999).
2.8. A final call for attention
The discussions on the use of indicators and potential supporting frameworks show that much
effort has already been put into formalising this approach. The CoastView project should try to
benefit from this vast base of knowledge and experience.
It is important to realise however that one can easily get carried away by continually improving
the methods to develop indicators and the existing supporting frameworks, thus losing track of
the primary objective, viz. bridging the gap between coastal science and coastal management. As
a concluding remark we stress that in order to bridge this gap, balancing the end user and
researchers input throughout the CoastView project is paramount. The focus on indicators and
supporting framework is secondary to this primary target in the sense that if there is not enough
interaction between the two actors, coastal management will not benefit from existing and/or
developing science, nor will science be able to deliver simple and useful information for coastal
managers.
Finally, as an open end of this paper we reproduce a paragraph of Jesinghaus (1999)
One might conclude that with

a consistent analytical framework like the DPSIR model,

and a solid, detailed and policy-relevant set of indicators,

the decision-maker (the coastal manager in the CoastView case) has everything that is needed to
start a successful working day. Unfortunately, experience shows that informed political decisions
are not necessarily good decisions. Even a perfect indicator system is not a guarantee that
suddenly all the errors that our societies have committed in the past could be avoided.

16/11/02

25

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

3. Coastal Resilience and Vulnerability.

By H. N. Southgate4
3.1 Introduction
The ideas of coastal resilience and vulnerability have become used since the early 1990s as
means of conceptualising coastal management problems as an integrated whole. They aim to
integrate both the physical and human subsystems that comprise a coastal system. These ideas
are in contrast to the more traditional idea of resistance of a coastline. Resistance is defined as
the ability of a coastline to resist significant change as a result of changes to external forces,
whether physical or human in origin. In contrast, resilience refers to the self-organising ability of
a coastline to change in response to changes to external forces, but in a way that preserves its
desirable features. Vulnerability is the inverse of resilience. The idea of resilience is designed to
give coastal managers the means to express complex coastal dynamics in a simple aggregated
form.
Overall coastal resilience is composed of three factors. 1) physical resilience, 2) ecological
resilience and 3) socio-economic resilience. Each factor is individually a complex system,
involving self-organisation and feedback processes, to which the concept of resilience can be
applied. However, these factors are also interdependent to some degree, and a full understanding
of coastal resilience would need to take account of this interdependency.
Coastal resilience can be seen as the latest stage in a historical process of the development of
ideas of coastal management. Prior to the 1950s, coastal problems were regarded largely in a
localised manner, both geographically (e.g. coastal protection measures at one site took no
account of impact on neighbouring stretches of coastline) and in terms of problem type (e.g.
coastal aggregate extraction took no account of the impact on protection of nearby beaches).
Engineering solutions were adopted which took little account of environmental or social
considerations. Since then, solutions to coastal problems have increasingly recognised the
integrated nature of all the factors affecting coastlines. There has been a greater focus on
geographically integrated management of coastlines, more use of interdisciplinary approaches
involving many factors in a single coastal management strategy, increased awareness of
ecosystems, and increased participation by coastal stakeholders and the public. Coastal
resilience is designed to provide a conceptual and quantitative framework in which data relating
to all the relevant factors can be accommodated and models of dynamic behaviour developed.
3.2 Theoretical background
The theoretical basis for coastal resilience lies in dynamical systems theory. This theory shows
that complex dynamical behaviour of systems composed of many different and interacting
factors is often the result of simple rules applied repeatedly. Such systems evolve (under constant
forcing conditions) to attractor states, which may be a state of equilibrium, periodic motion, or
a more complicated non-periodic motion that nevertheless has some overt or hidden spatiotemporal patterns. If the forcing conditions are changing, the attractor states will be distorted. A
sudden large change in forcing may cause the system to flip from one attractor state to another.
Over the past two decades this approach has been applied to many different types of dynamical
systems, including physical, ecological and socio-economic, which are typical of the subsystems
that comprise a coastal system. A dynamical systems approach therefore appears well-suited at a
4

Independent scientist and CoastView collaborator

16/11/02

26

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

theoretical level to describe and model a fully integrated coastal system. Of the three subsystems,
the dynamical systems approach has been most widely used in ecology, and population dynamics
has played a leading role in the early development of dynamical systems. The method has been
used for a variety of economic and socio-economic applications such as predicting the behaviour
of stock market indices, traffic flow and land use. Perhaps the subsystem that has been least
receptive to this approach has been the physical subsystem. Unlike the other subsystems there is
a pre-existing theoretical paradigm based on the laws of physics and it is often unclear how these
laws relate to rules in dynamical systems theory. There is a reluctance of coastal engineers and
scientists to abandon the familiar in favour of the new, despite the well-documented limitations
of models of coastal dynamics based on formulations of physical processes. One important area
of research is to relate dynamical system rules to physical laws.
3.3 Applications
At a qualitative level, the idea that the coastal subsystems are interlinked has underpinned much
of present coastal management practice. For example, these ideas are encapsulated in the
international Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) recommendations, the European
Union implementation of ICZM policy, and in the requirements for UK Shoreline Management
Plans (SMPs). In the UK, government grant aid is available for SMPs that consider large,
geologically self-contained stretches of coastline (coastal cells), that involve all relevant factors
(physical, ecological, socio-economic), that favour soft engineering solutions such as beach
renourishment or managed retreat, and that involve consultation with all coastal stakeholders. In
the Netherlands, the policy for the last decade has been to maintain the Dutch shoreline (defined
in terms of beach volume) at its 1990 level, an example of a coastal defence strategy based on
resistance. Recently this has been challenged (e.g. Klein et. al., 1998).
However, such management strategies have yet to be matched by research studies of coastal
resilience in a quantitative and fully integrated manner, let alone in the development of
quantitative management tools that exploit the coastal resilience concept. Present quantitative
research has focused on data gathering, analysis and modelling of the individual subsystems
(treating each subsystem as a dynamical system). Such research, even of individual subsystems,
is at an early stage, and this approach to the physical subsystem is still regarded by many
engineers and scientists as unconventional. Research into the physical subsystem has, to date,
been hampered by lack of coastal morphological data, in regard to spatial and temporal coverage
and resolution. Large morphological data sets are needed to in order to analyse and classify
coastlines in terms of dynamical system types, and to provide data to calibrate and drive models
of coastal evolution. From a coastal resilience viewpoint, the aim of such research is to
understand:
1) the extent to which observed morphological variability is a direct response to variability
in wave and tidal forcing conditions, or is a self-organising behaviour within an attractor
state and robust to the changes in external forcing.
2) the conditions under which a coastal system in an attractor state will flip to a new state
under strong changes in forcing.
The insurance industry represents an application of socio-economic resilience. Insurance
payments following a flooding event provide an immediate and large injection of funds for
recovery, and therefore promote socio-economic resilience particularly in economically deprived
areas. For such insurance to be effective, the industry needs accurate data about the physical
subsystem on which to base spatial maps of flooding probability. Such data needs to be
sufficiently accurate that the threat of flooding is perceived as credible in low-risk areas. Without
such data, some low-risk individuals will withdraw from cover, and the remaining high-risk
individuals will face increased premiums and may become uninsurable. The type of information
16/11/02

27

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

required about the physical subsystem probabilistic information is the natural output from a
dynamical systems approach.
3.4 Relevance to Coastal State Indicators (CSIs)
The CSIs discussed and identified at the CoastView kick-off meeting were static indicators,
indicating the state of the coastline at a particular time. By compiling data on these indicators
over time, time series of these CSIs can be built up. Static CSIs are most appropriate for coastal
management strategies based on resistance. However, management strategies based on
resilience require that information on the dynamic behaviour of the coastline is made available in
summarised form. This suggests that dynamic CSIs are required. These would be based on
analysis of time series of static CSIs, or on time series of model outputs. They would indicate
factors such as dynamic attractor type, limits of behaviour of static CSIs within the attractor, and
the conditions under which a state might flip to another state and what the properties of the new
state would be. As well as providing ranges of values of static CSIs, the dynamic CSIs could take
the form of probability distributions of static CSIs. This type of information is easily presented
graphically and would be an appropriate input for many coastal management issues (including,
for example, the insurance industry discussed above), along with summary information of the
probability distribution such as mean, standard deviation and percentage exceedance values.
The full range of coastal resilience issues is clearly beyond the scope of CoastView. However,
the use of these ideas in coastal management indicates that dynamic CSIs will be an important
input for coastal managers.

16/11/02

28

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

4. A new context for CSIs

By David Huntley5
4.1. Introduction
One of the primary aims of the CoastView project is to develop Coastal State Indicators (CSIs)
which will be of direct use to coastal managers and policy makers. The background to the project
is well set out by Jimenez and van Koningsveld (Section 2, this volume), who point out that the
key challenge is to overcome the acknowledged gap, variously described as a communications
gap, a knowledge gap or a relevance gap, between coastal science and coastal management.
The CoastView approach to this challenge is the identification of clearly defined CSIs which will
provide users with information needed for management and which are also rooted in present
scientific knowledge and measurement capabilities.
The CoastView Coastal State Indicators Workshop in May 2002 provided a rare and
exceptionally valuable opportunity for coastal scientists and coastal managers to discuss these
issues, to get a clearer understanding of each others approaches to coastal problems, and though
that process of dialogue to choose a set of appropriate CSIs, based on user needs. The Workshop
was carefully structured to ensure that the user input remained foremost because it was
acknowledged that the first step in the process had to be a clear statement of user needs; the
scientific drivers of CoastView should come only after the user-defined CSIs had been
identified. The primary purpose of the Workshop was therefore to achieve this first step.
During the course of the Workshop an approach to the development of user-based CSIs emerged,
based on a clearer definition of the context for CSIs. It is the purpose of this brief paper to
describe this context.
4.2. The overall approach
A schematic of the approach developed during the Workshop is shown in Figure 4.1.

Management context

Key Issues

Issue based CSIs

Science CSIs
Figure 4.1
Step 1:
The starting point is a recognition that management issues arise from distinct management
contexts. Within the CoastView project, four management contexts were identified:

The University of Plymouth, Institute of Marine Studies, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK

16/11/02

29

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Coastal Protection
Recreation
Eco-system protection
Navigation

The information needs for managers in these areas are not necessarily independent. For example,
beach width is relevant for coastal protection as well as for recreation. However the management
questions to be answered and the priority given to any particular source of information will tend
to be different in each of these contexts. The decision was made therefore to treat each of the
contexts separately, and only seek for common CSIs at the end of the process.
Step 2:
From each context a series of key issues arises. During the Workshop it became obvious that the
clearest way to define these issues was as questions which managers or policy makers need to be
asking about their sites. The Workshop discussions centred initially on the four individual sites
which form the core of the CoastView project, and these site specific discussions are outlined in
the following sections of this report. Here we present, in Table 4.1, a summary of the questions
raised and thus, by implication, the key issues which CSIs must address if they are to be of use to
coastal managers.
Table 4.1:
Management
Key Issues
Context
Coastal
C1: Are coastal defences (including the natural beach) adequate for the range
Protection
of conditions expected?
C2: What is the probability of defences being breached?
C3: What infrastructure is at risk from flooding?
C4: What is the optimum replenishment scheme for my beach?
C5: Is dredging adversely impacting my beach, and can I suggest better
alternative procedures?
C6: Can I predict beach behaviour if I know something about the offshore
bars?
C7: How can I optimise coastal defence in the long term?
Recreation
R1: Are beach users safe?
R2: How do I identify/predict risks to bathers?
R3: When do I need to worry about a decreasing width of my beach?
R4: Can I anticipate the occurrence of algal blooms or seaweed attacks, and
can I do anything to alleviate the problem?
R5: What is the current usage of the beach? Where do people go (duration/
location)?
Navigation
N1: Where is the navigation channel?
N2: How is it likely to evolve?
N3: What is the configuration of dangerous banks?
N4: How can dredging be optimised (where, how much, how often, where
should spoil go)?
Ecosystem
E1: Is the state of dune vegetation a cause for concern?
Protection
E2: How can the effects of pollutants be mitigated effectively?
E3: How can problems for ecosystems be anticipated and avoided or
minimised?

16/11/02

30

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

The list in Table 4.1 is not exhaustive, and each site is likely to prioritise the issues differently.
However the list does include many of the issues which were identified as being generic, in the
sense that they are likely to be of importance across a range of different sites and conditions.
Step 3:
Once the key issues are identified, the search for appropriate CSIs is constrained by the need to
find those which:
-

will help the coastal manager address a particular associated question, and
will be in a form which the manager will recognise as directly related to the question and
be able to use.

The Workshop used the title Issue-based CSI (IBCSI) to characterise such a CSI.
In searching for these IBCSIs it quickly became necessary during our discussions to distinguish
them from what were termed Science CSIs (SCSIs). SCSIs are individual parameters or
indicators which the scientists recognise as objective measures of the physical state of the
environment and which will generally be derivable from existing or planned measurement
techniques. An IBSCI will typically depend upon an aggregation of the basic SCSIs, weighted in
a particular manner in order to produce a CSI which will directly inform the manager without the
need to address unnecessary detail. The clearest example to emerge from the Workshop was the
use by some managers of a measure of beach volume (for example to a sub-tidal depth of 4m).
This example of an IBCSI will depend upon a range of directly measurable SCSIs such as beach
width, beach height, beach slope, subtidal water depth and dune location. Not all IBCSIs will be
aggregates, however. For example beach width was identified as an IBSCI but is also a SCSI,
being a directly measurable simple scientific measure of beach state.
Jimenez and van Koningsveld (this volume) describe similar aggregations of what they term
indicators (SCSIs) to form what they call an index. Their definition of an index and the
Workshop definition of an IBSCI are almost equivalent, but they are not identical since the index
is seen as intrinsically involving a high degree of aggregation, whilst the IBSCIs which
emerged from the Workshop (discussed below) frequently mapped quite closely onto SCSIs and
often were identical.
Our discussions during the workshop affirmed that as the direction of the arrows in Figure 4.1
makes clear, that the role of the SCSIs is to respond to the IBCSIs required by managers, and not
to constrain the identification of IBCSIs.
4.3. Issue-based CSIs.
During the discussions aimed at identifying IBCSIs, the interesting, important, and perhaps not
entirely surprising fact emerged that different approaches to assessing the state of the coasts have
emerged across Europe. For example, whilst all obviously agreed that an IBCSI describing the
beach state was required, several different forms of beach state IBCSI were suggested. Some
use a measure of beach volume, taken to 4m subtidal depth. Others prefer a measure of beach
width, or location of the shoreline relative to the dune foot, or the absolute elevation of top of the
beach, or are used to dealing with a range of such measures.
Given this range of measures, an attempt was made to group potential CSIs into a set of IBCSIs,
some of which contained several different possible outputs to users. The following list shows in
bold, the general IBCSIs. The list which appears below each IBCSI shows individual CSIs which
16/11/02

31

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

emerged from our discussions and may be considered as facets of the general IBCSI. These CSIs
are by association also issue based.
Beach state IBCSI:
Beach volume (to 4m)
Beach elevation
Beach width
Position of the dune foot
Beach contours
Algal bloom/ seaweed IBCSI:
Maps of bloom/seaweed location (to include origin)
Subtidal water depths IBCSI:
Channel location
Channel depth
Slope of sides of channel
Wave condition IBCSI:
Wave height
Wave direction
Long-term wave statistics
Nearshore current IBCSI:
Mapping of cells and rip currents
Offshore bars IBCSIs:
Bar location
Bar height
Classification of beach bar morphology
Dune condition IBCSI:
Dune height
Dune flora (extent, health)
Salt spray measure
Overwash
Beach use IBCSI:
Location of users
Duration of visits
Nature of use
Density of users
Shipping activity IBCSI:
Number of passages
Location of passages
Types of vessels
Dredging activity IBCSI:
Location (including spoil dumps)
Frequency
16/11/02

32

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Beach Nourishment IBCSI:

Beach state IBCSI
Mapping of bar evolution in key locations
In Table 4.2 we show how these grouped IBCSIs are expected to relate to the key issues listed in
Table 4.1: the symbols C1 etc. relate to the question numbering in that table.
4.4. Summary and Issues for the future.
The contextual framework shown in Figure 4.1 proved very useful in focussing the discussion
and resulted in the identification of a set of clearly defined issue-based Coastal State Indicators.
The detailed application of these ideas to the four sites within the CoastView project is described
in the following sections of this report.
The contextual framework also provides guidance for future activity:
1. The scientific community in CoastView now has a clear challenge to develop the science
CSIs required and to aggregate them into the issue-based CSIs which have been
identified.
2. Further discussions involving both scientists and managers will focus on refining the
IBCSIs. As these CSIs are developed and demonstrated, it should be possible to identify
optimum forms or even a simple form of the IBCSIs identified within the groups
proposed above. In this way we plan to maintain genuine dialogue and interaction
between scientists and managers. The outcome should be a more integrated, scientific
and effective approach to coastal management across Europe.

16/11/02

33

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Table 4.2: links between these grouped IBCSIs and the key issues. The size of the crossed is
indicative of the strength of the link.
IBCSI

C1 C4 C5 C6 C7 R1 R3 R4 R5 N1 N3 N4 E1
C2
R2
N2
C3

E2

E3

Beach state
X

Blooms/
seaweed

Sub-tidal
depths
Wave
conditions

x
x

Nearshore
currents

Offshore
bars

Dune
condition

X
X

x
x

Beach use
X

Shipping
activity

Dredging
activity
Beach
nourishment

16/11/02

X
X

x
x

x
X

34

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

5. Coastal Management Issues:

This section details general coastal management issues and policy in the Netherlands, UK,
Spain and Italy and Italy as well as at the specific management issues at the CoastView field
sites.
5.1 Coastal management issues in the Netherlands
By Rutger Van6 der Weide, Ruud Spanhoff6 & Arno de Kruif6
5.1.1.Introduction
In this document, the CoastView end user wishes for the Dutch party are stated. A list is given
with giving policy-issues, CSIs (both currently used CSIs and proposed ones) and parameters.
The issues are subdivided into three themes:
coastal safety
landscape, nature, culture values
(private) user functions.
These three themes are taken from the Dutch national coastal policy. The central theme of this
national policy is dynamic maintenance. It also is important to state that all measures and
decisions need to be cost-efficient.
5.1.2. Dutch coastal policy and management issues
Coastal Safety
- Maintaining basal coast line (BKL)
The government decided in 1990 to keep the coastline at its location. Yearly the
coastline is measured (see Figure 5.1), and since 1990 nourishments are carried out if a
ten-year average of the MKL has crossed the BKL. Evaluation of the effectiveness of
these measures is a priority.
- Protection against flooding
Hard sea defences (dikes) and soft sea defences (dunes) have to be sufficiently strong
to protect the hinterland against a design water level and a design storm. If not
sufficient, measures are taken like heightening or strengthening. Monitoring and
evaluation of the design water level parameters is a priority.
- Maintenance of sand volume in coastal foundation
Policy is still developing. The volume of sand in the coastal foundation (2nd dune row
to 20 m) has to stay above a minimum level. No measures (nourishments) are taking
place yet, but information about volume changes is a priority.
Landscape, Nature, Culture values
- Maintenance and reinforcement of natural coastal values
Current policy consists of a dune protection programme, flora and fauna law.
Evaluation of these laws and measures are of interest as well as monitoring of
restricted areas.
- Maintenance of coastal perception values
No current policy exists, but it is developing. Discussion is needed, input from the
science point of view is welcome.
6

Rijkswaterstaat, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management RIKZ, P.O.Box 20907, 2500 EX Den
Haag, The Netherlands

16/11/02

35

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Maintenance of (historical) cultural heritage

(Private) user functions

Recreation and tourism
- Protection of quality of coastal zone for recreation and tourism purposes
This policy aspect is a priority-issue because of the economic benefits of tourism. No
clear national policy exists and decisions are mostly taken on regional level. A policy
on beach width is developing, discussion is needed (see Figure 5.2 for definition of
beach width).
Infrastructure for shipping and navigation
- Maintenance of accessibility
Accessibility for shipping (by dredging) is the responsibility of the ministry of pubic
works, transport and water management.
Residence
- Red contours-policy
Spatial pressure on the coast from the land is increasing. Seaside resorts are still
developing and building in the coastal zone. In the 5th national policy document on
environmental and country planning red contours are drawn on the country map.
Within these contours the towns can build, outside these contours this is possible only
very exceptionally.
Business and industry
- Red contours-policy
Spatial pressure on the coast from the land is increasing.
The need for whole-year exploitation of recreational facilities on the beach is
increasing, whereas currently the exploitation only is done in summer season.
Drinking water collection
- Protection of drinking water collection function
Junction of cables and pipe lines
At sea: mineral extraction and fishing
Military use
Waste disposal
Agriculture
Transportation
New, future activities
- For instance alternative energy sources (windmills), airport in the sea. These plans
have to be studied very carefully before decisions are made. Integrated approaches and
much information are needed. It is possible that in the future, new CSIs and
parameters are developed and needed.
5.1.3. Policy issues, CSIs, parameters and specifications
In Table 5.1 to 5.3 the three policy themes and their corresponding issues can be seen,
together with already developed CSIs and parameters (black). Some issues arent specified
yet. In these cases the (proposed) CSIs are grey. As can be seen, the CSIs and parameters are
mostly grey, which means that a lot of things still have to be developed. Discussion is needed.
Although not covered at the CoastView kick-off meeting it is crucial to gather information
about currently used measuring methods and techniques and their specifications. This way, it
is possible to compare Argus with existing methods.

16/11/02

36

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

The Dutch end users

Two main sorts of end users can be characterised within the Dutch government: coastal policy
makers and coastal managers. As often, in practise the difference is not very strict. The policy
makers are mostly the national ministries which make the laws and regulations. The coastal
managers, who translate the policies into concrete actions to be taken in the coastal zone, are
governmental institutes on a regional level. Examples are Regional Directories of
Rijkswaterstaat, the Provinces, Waterboards and local authorities. The RIKZ (national
institute for coastal and marine management) role is one in between the policy makers and
managers.
Besides the Dutch government also a few private parties can be identified as potential future
end users. For instance harbour management, insurance companies, nature preservers, other
interest groups, etc.
At this point, the Argus technique will only be studied and developed for the values and
interests recognised by the Dutch governments.
Prioritising
In the Netherlands, the coastal safety theme still is the issue with the highest priority. Due to
economic interests, recreation and tourism also have high priority. This is the reason why
these issues are more specified then others (black CSIs and parameters in the tables, instead of
grey). Most issues dont have a clear policy with specified CSIs, for instance ecology. The
result is that it is not possible to directly develop CSIs and test them for application of Argus.
Yet it is important to keep discussion on these issues open, and propose usable parameters and
CSIs.
Final remarks
For Rijkswaterstaat it is very important that the Argus technique can prove its usefulness
within the CoastView project. This means that Argus has to beat currently used measuring
methods on several areas. These areas can be: accuracy, spatial or temporal resolution,
financial aspects.
It is important that at the end of the project is made clear which parameters cannot be
measured with Argus. Why cant they be measured with Argus? Is the accuracy not good
enough? The resolution? Is further development an option, so it may be possible in the (near)
future? These answers are needed as a useful feedback to the end users.
Rijkswaterstaat wants the document with the wishes of the end users to stay alive. This
means that during the project specifications, additions or other alterations can be made in the
list of proposed CSIs and parameters. This also means that the researchers can propose
alterations to the end users.

16/11/02

37

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Table 5.1: Coastal Safety

Policy Theme
Coastal Safety

Policy / Management issue

+ Context
Maintaining Basal Coast Line (BCL)
Context: current measure: nourishment

evaluation of effectiveness

Coastal State Indicator (CSI)

Parameter

Momentary Coast Line (MCL)

Protection from flooding

Context: current measure: dikes, dunes,
probabilistic method, coastal safety policy

Monitoring and evaluation of the design
water level parameters

Minimum erosion profile after

storm
Theoretical minimum erosion
profile for design storm (dunes)
Design water level (dikes)

Horizontal location of dune foot

(Mean Low) Water line
Bathymetric profile between +3 and
8m
Location of erosion profile after storm

Maintenance of sand volume in coastal

foundation
Context: Currently no measures yet,
nourishment policy

evaluation of effectiveness

16/11/02

Natural dune stability

Sand volume in section of coastal
foundation

Bathymetric profile between 2nd dune

row and -20m
Wave height
Wave direction
Bathymetric profile between 0 and
20m
Dune vegetation
Bathymetric profile between 1st dune
row and 20m

39

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Table 5.2 LNC Values

Policy Theme
LNC-values
(Landscape, Nature,
Culture)

Policy / Management issue

+ Context
Maintenance and reinforcement of natural
coastal values
Context: current measure: dune protection
programme, flora and fauna law

evaluation of effectiveness and
monitoring of protected area

Maintenance of coastal perception values

Context: no explicit policy yet

Coastal State Indicator (CSI)

Parameter

Dune vegetation

% coverage dune vegetation

Salt spray (~ surf zone width?)

Dune, beach, sea fauna

Seaweed
Shellfish
Birds
Algae
Water quality
Fish
Human disturbance of protected
area
Emptiness of horizon
Presence of traditional beach
qualities (sand, shells, air, water)
Presence of traditional dune
qualities (sand, vegetation, birds,
etc.)
Peace and quiet
Presence of litter

Litter

Maintenance of (historical) cultural heritage

16/11/02

40

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Table 5.3: (Private) user functions

Policy Theme
(Private) user
functions
Recreation and
tourism

Policy / Management issue

+ Context

Coastal State Indicator (CSI)

Protection of quality of coastal zone for

Beach width
recreation and tourism purposes
Context: No clear national policy exists and Quality of beach
decisions are mostly taken on regional
level.

evaluation of effectiveness of parameters
is of interest (for instance beach width)
Quality of swimming water

Quality for aquatic sports

Swimmer safety
Occupancy of beach

Infrastructure for
shipping and
navigation

16/11/02

Maintenance of accessibility
Context: current law,

Recreational accommodation
facilities
Morphological behaviour /
displacement of channel
Number of ships in harbour
entrance
Hydrodynamic circumstances
harbour entrance

Parameter

Horizontal location of dune foot

(Mean High) Water line
Algae on beach
Litter
Silt
Sand quality
Algae in water
Colour of water
Smell of water
Jellyfishes
Wave height
Current
Rip-current
Location sand bars
Number of seaside visitors
Spreading of seaside visitors

Location of channel
Depth of channel
Number of ships
Currents
Wave height
Wave direction

41

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Table 5.3 (continuation): (Private) user functions

Policy Theme

Policy / Management issue

+ Context
Business and Red contours-policy
industry
Drinking water Protection of drinking water collection
collection function
Residence Red contours-policy
Junction of cables
and pipe lines
At sea: mineral
extraction and
fishing
Military use
Waste disposal
Agriculture
Transportation

16/11/02

Coastal State Indicator (CSI)

Parameter

Building contour

Building contour
Coverage of cables?
Number of ships?

42

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Momentary Coastline (MKL)

Dune foot boundary fixed and dune foot boundary not fixed
RSP
reference line
dune foot
dune foot
boundary not
boundary
momentary
coastline
mean low
waterline

H
Onf

Of

Cnf
Cf
Figure 5.1

H = Height between dune foot and mean low water [m]

O = BKL-zone [m2] (Gray area)
B = O / 2H [m]
MKL = B - C [m]

Beach Width
Distance between NAP +3m and mean low water (MLW)
or mean high water (MHW)

total beach width

dry beach width

NAP

+3m

mean high water

NAP

mean low water

Figure 5.2

16/11/02

43

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

5.2 Coastal management issues in the UK

By Jane Rawson7
5.2.1 Coastal management in the UK
Management of the Coastal Zone in the UK is determined by legislation, organisational
structure, and the physical nature of the coastline. The Environment Agency (of England and
Wales) is involved in coastal management through the activities of many of our departments,
including pollution prevention, fisheries, conservation, navigation, recreation and flood defence.
Legislation relevant to the coastal zone is extensive, and much is based on European Directives
such as the Habitats and Birds Directive, Bathing Water Directive and the Water Framework
Directive. In this way we experience similar challenges to our European partners, although each
country works to slightly different legal interpretations and has additional national legislation.
Organisational structures within each member state are more varied. In England and Wales there
are many government departments and agencies, non-governmental organisations, interest
groups, industries, right-holders and charities which are actively involved in managing the coast.
As such there is no single coastal manager that can be identified for any stretch of coastline,
and conflicting uses and demands are made on the various resources of our coast and estuaries.
The nature of the coastline is very diverse, with the hard rock environments of the north east
contrasting directly with the soft, low lying environment in the Anglian region. The full range of
sediment sizes and coastal morphology types is evident along the thousands of kilometres of
shoreline, with large muddy estuaries, hard rock cliffs, soft rock slopes, dune backed systems,
saltmarshes, shingle ridges and many other features represented, all reflecting a range of
geological conditions and present day process environments.
The Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is the government
department that produces policy guidance on flood and coastal defence and other aspects of
coastal management. In advocating the strategic approach, and the use of technically,
environmentally and economically sound management techniques, DEFRA encourage
authorities not to interfere with coastal processes unless in the national interest. Shoreline
Management Plans have been produced for the whole of the coastline of England and Wales, and
strategies to implement defence works are developed where appropriate. More emphasis is now
placed on integration with land-use planning, and the long-term investment in research to ensure
application of the best available knowledge to solve coastal problems.
The Environment Agency is the flood defence authority for England and Wales. Our activities
include issuing flood warnings, regulating and advising on development in the flood plain, and
constructing and maintaining flood defences (including sea defences). Work can include
nourishment, construction of walls, maintenance of earth embankments, realignment of defences,
and use of artificial structures. The coast protection authority (protection of higher ground from
erosion) is usually the local council or landowner. Here there is no automatic right to flood and
coastal defence, and no national policy to defend all land and property instead the value of
doing so is compared with the costs of any work (financial and environmental) in order to come
to a decision in a particular area.

UK Environment Agency, Kingfisher House, Goldhay Way, Orton Goldhay, Peterborough, PE2 5ZR, UK

16/11/02

44

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

5.2.2. Management issues at Teignmouth, Devon

Teignmouth is a town in south west England which demonstrates many of the challenges to
coastal management in the UK. It has a busy port, a local fishing industry, it is a popular tourist
resort and is at risk of flooding. The town is on the western edge of Lyme Bay, and is largely
protected from Atlantic storms by various headlands to the south. Like many other beaches in
south west England and in Wales, the beach at Teignmouth is contained between two headlands.
This beach is backed by a sea wall that both supports a main railway line, and protects the town
from erosion and flooding. A private company owns the harbour, and the Harbour Authority is
responsible for safe navigation into and out of the harbour, and therefore has some responsibility
for the management of the mouth of the estuary and the adjacent coastline.

Figure 5.3
Copyright South West Water

The management issues identified in the Shoreline Management Plan for the area include:
To protect the developed areas of Teignmouth and Shaldon (including listed buildings and
conservation areas, and docks).
About 20 hectares of the town of Teignmouth is built upon relatively low lying which is
protected from flooding by a sea wall. This is fronted by the sand and shingle beach, and changes
to the beach profile could alter the effectiveness of the seawall in limiting wave overtopping. The
docks and their supporting services provide an important local industry, employing many people.
The docks are also on relatively low lying land, which could be flooded during exceptionally
high tides in the estuary. A manager may wish to know Are the defences OK? - in the short
term, is the beach level compromising the defences? In the medium term, do they work in their
design event? In the long term, are they sustainable? Are they in the right place?

16/11/02

45

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

To maintain the main line railway link in its present location

The main line railway from London to South Devon and Cornwall via Exeter runs along the
coastal margin from Exeter to Teignmouth. The railway line is protected by massive seawalls,
which are in good condition here. Along much of its length the seawall is fronted by the sand and
shingle beach, and changes in beach profile could affect the stability of the seawall and its ability
to protect the railway line. A manager may wish to know When will this wall these be
compromised? Under what conditions may there be a risk now?

To not impinge on navigational access in the Teign estuary

Navigational access into the Teign estuary, for commercial vessels, fishing vessels and pleasure
craft, is controlled by the available water depths in the complex area of bars, banks and channels
just outside the estuary entrance. The banks and bars are constantly changing, and at present the
channel depth is maintained by drag-dredging almost every day of the year. A manager may
wish to know Can I predict where and when the banks will move? or Can I undertake my
dredging more efficiently?

To maintain bathing beach quality

Teignmouth is a popular location both for beach users (walkers and bathers) and for water sports
users (sailing, powerboats and jet skis). Beach usage takes place both on the main seafront and
on the estuary shorelines. For all these users the quality and safety of the beach and of the coastal
and estuarine waters is an important consideration in their decision to visit Teignmouth rather
than any of the adjacent resorts. A manager may wish to know Is my beach safe for swimmers,
and will it always be there? What are the maximum currents? Should there be no-go areas?
When should low beach levels be worrying?

Many coastal managers exist at Teignmouth these include the council, which wishes to
encourage tourism, to the Agency, which wishes to defence the town from floods, licences
deposits at sea, monitors water quality, and so on, to the port operator, which wishes to maintain
a profitable operation. Many coastal state indicators could be useful to more than one manager,
the following is a basic matrix of some initial CSIs and potential uses:

Shoreline position
Bathymetry
Beach volume
Location of banks
Wave conditions
Water levels
Table 5.4

16/11/02

Flood defence

Navigation

Recreation

Transport

46

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

5.3. Spanish coastal management problems

5.3.1 A brief overview of coastal management problems in Spain
By Jos A. Jimnez8
The Spanish coastline is about 8,000 km long with a high diversity of coastal environments of
which about the 24% corresponds to beaches (Figure 5.3). This natural richness, climate
conditions, geo-strategic location and the attraction of the Spanish culture have converted Spain
in one of the main tourist destinations in such a way that the tourist sector represents about the
10% of the GNP. Taking into account that about the 80% of the tourism choose the coast and the
worldwide tendency of increase of density of population in the coastal zone we can obtain
figures like these: average population density in Spain: 75 hb/km2, coastal zone: from 308
hb/km2 to a maximum of 924 hb/km2 (during the high season in tourist areas). These numbers
can give an idea about the pressure that it is exerted on the coastal zone. With this and taking
into account the inherent sensitivity of this area (cut-off of sediment supplies by rivers, highly
dynamic environment in which any perturbation e.g. marinas- is rapidly propagated, areas of
natural interest in delicate balance, etc.) we have all the coupons to get the prize of suffering
coastal problems in the broadest sense. Table 5.5 shows some of the common problems along the
Spanish coastline selected as a function of the CoastView approach, i.e. CoastView can help to
managers to make decisions on them.

Figure 5.3. Main types of coasts in Spain (source: Spanish Ministry of Environment)
Finally, to put in context what meant by the term manager within the Spanish context; there are
three main levels of administration on the coastal zone each one with specific responsibilities
and regulation capabilities (source: Ministry of Environment):
Central Government (Ministry of Environment): definition, management and protection of
the maritime-land public domain (including protection works); grant the public access to the
seashore; collaborate in the urban development of the coast; recreation of beaches and any
other coastal environment.

CIIRC, Laboratori dEnginyeria Martima, Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, c/Jordi Girona

1-3, campus Nord, ed. D1, 08034 Barcelona, Spain (jose.jimenez@upc.es).
16/11/02

47

CoastView, Nov-02

CSI Report

Regional Governments: authorisation of the construction of yatching harbours; authorisation

and control of wastewaters releases to the sea; authorisation of facilities in the protection
area; develop urban plans along the coast.
Municipalities: report on requests of occupation of the public domain; operation of the
season services on the coast; take care of cleaning and hygiene of the beach; surveillance of
beaches and safeguard of users.

16/11/02

48

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

Problem

Questions/concerns

Coastal function Manager(s) & end-user(s)

Infrastructure
damages in beaches
Coastal erosion

Which is the vulnerability of existing infrastructures along the beach due to

storm impacts? Where to place them to minimise their vulnerability?
Which is the erosion pattern and rates along the coast? Which are the areas
most affected?
Which is the behaviour of designed coastal protection works? Are they
behaving as predicted? Is my maintenance plan still valid? Do I have to reevaluate its design?

Protection

Which is the state of the outlets on the beach (in a daily basis) because I have a
warning system for floods during the heavy rain season and I need to know the
state of the beach in from of it to take actions?
When siltation problems will occur (to design preventive actions and/or to
consider/plan dredging maintenance works? When do I have to bypass material
and the volume of material to be bypassed?
Which are the most affected areas downcoast of the harbour to place the
material to be bypassed?
Do I have to update the design of by-pass operations?

Protection
Safety

Which is the density of users (including temporal and spatial distributions) to

optimise beach services?
Which is the ratio of beach users vs the carrying capacity to maintain the
tourist sector within planned quality level? Do I need to maintenance coastal
engineering related-works in the beach to provide the proper beach to users?
Which are the dangerous sites regarding users?
Which is the evolution of existing coastal resources?
Do I have to design protection works?
Do I have to adapt/modify protective figures/rules?
Do I have to launch ecological restoration plans?
Do I have to update setbacks? Get information to facilitate negotiation in
retreating projects.

Recreation
Safety

Municipalities
Regional Government
Central Government

Environmental

Central Government
Regional Government

Protection
Planning

Central Government
Municipalities
Owners

Monitoring/control
performance of
coastal protection
works
Storm-water outlets
closure in sandy
beaches
Siltation in marinas &
Shoreline erosion
downcoast of harbours
Bypass design &
operation
Pressure of use in
tourist
beaches/carrying
capacity

Protection of coastal
resources areas of
high environmental
values
Coastal
regulation/adapting
setbacks
Table 5.5. Some common management problems along the Spanish coast.

Protection
Protection

Navigation
Recreation
Protection

Central Government
Municipalities
Central Government
Municipalities
Central Government

Municipalities
Regional Government
Central Government
Harbours
Regional Government
Central Government
Municipalities

49

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

5.3.2. Coastal management problems at El Puntal.

By Paco Martin9
El Puntal Spit is one of the most important urban beaches within the Bay of Santander (North
of Spain). The relevance of the beach is not only induced by the recreation activities but for
the protective effect of the beach and dunes on the small tourist village of Somo.
The evolution of the beach has been controlled by the history of land reclamation inside the
Bay of Santander. In the last 200 years, 50% of the original bay area has been reclaimed, thus
tidal prism (and currents) have been dramatically reduced. This reduction lead to a narrowing
of the tidal discharge channel forming the bays mouth.
A major commercial harbour is hosted inside the bay. Merchant vessels are larger with greater
drafts, therefore it has been necessary to increase the depth and maintenance of the channel in
the recent years.
Both effects (larger navigation channel requirements and narrowing of the natural bay mouth)
are incompatible and, thus, major dredging works are required periodically.
Historical dredging of El Puntal spit has taken more than 40x106 m3 of sand from the beach,
resulting in a severe reduction of the dunes in the central part of the beach, risking the village
of Somo. Since 1992 the Port Authority is replenishing dredged sand from the bays mouth to
the beach central area as a way of finding a sustainable management of the navigation channel
and beach.
This close circuit dredging procedure must be done periodically, especially after severe
storms, since the navigation channel is reduced noticeably after one single severe storm.
Moreover, replenished sand can be placed in different parts of the emerged and/or submerged
parts of the beach, depending on the needs and on the dunes erosion state.
This management of the beach requires an intensive amount of bathymetric data, with a large
temporal resolution. Currently, this data is taken by means of classic surveillance, although
not as often as required due to great costs and rough sea states in the zone.
Two more management activities are carried out in the beach: first, a beach vegetation
induced dune stabilisation activity has been carried out by the Spanish Ministry of
Environment. The evolution of the dune vegetation is monitored through dune vegetation area
and vegetation type. Currently this is done by in situ campaigns. Secondly, sand dredging in
the bays mouth generates large beach slopes and tidal currents which must be controlled to
establish recreational swimming conditions.
Therefore, the management of the beach is carried out by different institutions with different
needs and objectives, with most of the activities based on detailed surveying of the beach.

University of Cantabria, Av Los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

51

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

After the previous introduction to El Puntal management problems, the following key issues
have been identified:
Management context
Coastal protection
Recreation
Navigation
Ecosystem protection

Issue
Is dredging adversely impacting on the beach?
How do we best replenish of dredged sand on the beach?
Are swimmers at risk?
Is the beach recovering?
When should dredging occur?
How much should be dredged?
Are the dunes on the Spit stable and recovering?

Table 5.6

52

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

5.4 A brief overview of coastal management problems at Lido di Dante

By Alberto Lamberti10
Lido di Dante is a combination of a protected and an unprotected beach. The list in Table 6.4
in the following section of this report includes both the protected and unprotected region,
which will be treated as a combined site for this project. This will allow the integration of
existing monitoring techniques between University of Bologna and University of Ferrara,
which will enable the characterisation of the site from a hydrodynamic and morphological
standpoint.
Critical issues for Lido di Dante are:

coastal protection: behind the beach bathing establishments (continental style bathing
beaches) are present as well as houses that would be endangered by beach erosion;

dune protection: a natural dune system protects southward of Lido di Dante the pine wood
from salt water intrusion; in the inhabited area dunes that were eroded in past are
substituted by a concrete wall separating the beach from the inner road system;

recreational use of the beach; the beach is traditionally dedicated to bathing; the part of the
beach in front of the village is equipped with establishments and normally frequented by
seasonal visitors; the natural southern beach is frequented by naturists and people living in
the camping behind;

water quality: water quality is a general problem for all the eutrophic Northern Adriatic
Sea and particularly for beaches located south of the Po Delta; algal blooms were frequent
in the 1980s, due to high nutrient loading; they have decreased in frequency in recent
years.

safety for bathers: strong currents that may be enhanced by the defence structure could
endanger bather safety; bathing is virtually forbidden (red flag on the beach) under rough
sea or strong seaward winds.

the beach is artificially maintained by nourishment; since a gas extraction field is located
in the area, local subsidence is supposed to be higher than average; maintenance
nourishment around 2000-5000 m3/year is expected to be necessary to maintain the beach.

During storms algae growing on the barrier are removed and transported to the shoreline;
claims were raised by owners of establishments.

10

University of Bologna, DISTART , IdraulicaViale Risorgimento, 240136 Bologna, Italy

53

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

5.4.1 Emillia-Romagna (ER) littoral conditions

Figure 5.4. The Emillia-Romagna Region

ER coast extends from the Po river delta, on the North side, to Gabicce headland Southwards
(Figure 5.4); it is a 130 km long sandy beach, where several minor rivers arrive to the sea.
Several marinas or minor harbours are present along the coast and only one industrial port:
Ravennas Porto Corsini harbour.
Tide excursion in the region is low: 0.4 m at spring tide; exceptionally tide elevation may
reach 1.0 m a.m.s.l.
Semi-permanent wave conditions are characterised by 0.5 m significant height and 3.5-4.0 s
period, typical annual storm conditions are 3.5 m height and 7 s period; exceptionally waves
may reach 6.0 m height and 10 s period.
Major winds are Bora, a cold intense wind coming from NE, associated to short fetches,
unstable conditions, intense turbulence and causing steep waves, and Scirocco, a generally

54

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

warm wind from SE, blowing along the Adriatic Sea major axis (long fetches) with moderate
intensity and causing long waves.
Scirocco prevails near the shoreline, whereas Bora prevails offshore except in the very
Southern part of the region littoral where it attacks the coast almost orthogonally.
Beach sand grain size is normally around 0.2 mm, somewhat greater on the shoreline (0.3-0.4
mm), and finer on the offshore bar typically 2.5 m deep.

Figure 5.5. Typical ER cross-shore profile

The natural beach profile is composed of 2-3 m high dunes, that today may be found only in a
minor part of the littoral region the including southern beach at Lido di Dante. At the foot of
the dunes is a 30-50 m wide beach that is stable with slopes in the range of 1/20 to 1/30. The
beach is approximately 1.5 m a.m.s.l. at the dune foot. The submerged beach presents several
bars; the bed is sandy down to the depth of 6.0-8.0 m a.s.l.; this closure point is 600 to 1000
m from the shore, and offshore the bed is mainly composed by recent clay and silt sediments
down to 30-40 m depth (70 km from the shoreline), where some ancient dune ridges may be
found that are presently used for beach nourishment.
Most coast defence structures are built 200-250 m from the shore.
Subsidence is a major concern. In the northern part of the littoral its mean value is 1.0
cm/year; it absorbs around 106 m3/year all along the coast and approximately as much as that
in the coastal lagoons, present in the Po delta area.
Sand abrasion and port dredging cause losses around 105 m3/year.
5.4.2 ER coast use: Issues, benefits and problems

Recreation and tourism. It causes, at a regional level, one of the major incomes of the
region.

Urbanised areas defence. This was the main motivation for intervention of the central
government, till the passage of competencies to regional government; actually it has often
covered or combined interest in beach preservation (for tourism).

Flood defence. Several low-lying areas are present in the region that are occasionally
inundated during exceptional storm surge events. The problem was aggravated by the

55

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

destruction of dunes for urban development. Nowadays a standardised level of flood

protection is defined and attention is paid to the continuity of the defence system.
Subsidence. Subsidence has been a major concern in the Po delta area during the 1960s,
since it reached a local and temporary peak intensity of 20 cm/year, due to the extraction
of methane-producing water. Groundwater extraction is a generalised cause for
subsidence in the plain area; since this was recognised, extraction was prohibited in 1982,
and substituted with new surface water resources. Gas extraction: dry methane is
extracted in the sea, offshore but also near to the shoreline; gas is extracted from deep
deposits induced subsidence is probably below 1 cm/year.
Fishing. Several small fishing harbour and marinas are present in the region. Fishing is a
medium economic importance activity.
Navigation. Ravenna P.to Corsini is the only industrial harbour in the area and fortunately
does not cause serious problems to adjacent littorals. Nautical recreation as well as the
possibility of the intervention of safety boats must be considered in designing coastal
defences.
Nature preservation. The delta area is part of a natural park extending southwards along
the coast down to Ravenna. The main environmental protected sites are humid areas,
lagoons and woods. They are endangered by antropogenic pressure (humans and
industries) and by subsidence. Coastal lagoons extension is increasing and extended once
low lying areas are now submerged. Pine woods on dunes suffer for salt intrusion.
Water quality and eutrophication. Water eutrophication, algal blooms and mucilages has
been for several years a major concern. Situation apparently is becoming less severe, but
attention is due to the problem.

5.4.3. CSI used in ER

Regional government action is based on very simple indicators, that may be specific to typical
Mediterranean conditions. They are described in more detail in Section 6 including the
temporal and spatial resolution used.

Shoreline position and beach width are surveyed with aerial photographs every few years.

Complete beach profiles (down to 6 or 8 m) are carried out every 10 years
approximately and every 500 m. No precise rule is present and some surveys are part of
design or construction activity and may be difficult to find.

Near submerged beach. In critical areas attention is paid to it since it is used as and early
warning indicator for erosion.

Dune height, is monitored with sporadic surveys often related to local works.

Subsidence. A tidal gauge is available in Porto Corsini providing (among other
information) yearly mean sea level. Topographic levelling along a predetermined line
system is carried out every 5-10 years. A precision GPS levelling system is under
predisposition, aiming to provide information with greater time resolution.

Waves were observed since long time from gas platform. A modern wave measuring
network was installed by AGIP on gas platform around 1990. Observation are made for
10 every 30. Data in principle should include direction, but direction were never
obtained by us. Since data belong to a private company, their availability is not
completely sure nor punctual.

Wind observations are carried out in several locations: lighthouses, power stations,
measurement stations, gas platforms.

Recreational use of the beach: local agencies register the presence of tourists in the
municipalities.

Water quality. A regional centre based in Cesenatico is present with the special aim to
monitor water quality and water quality problems.

Foam deposition in sheltered areas is non-officially registered since it causes degradation
of the beach.
56

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

Conditions of risk are assessed whenever beach width fall below a threshold. Beach width is
measured from structure toe to m.s.l. shoreline. 20 m width is an absolute minimum below
which structures are seriously exposed to risk. 50 m is a reasonable target value of beach
width for a beach that is moderately used for recreation. For the most intensively used
beaches a 100 m target value is considered. Above this width, beach value does not increase
significantly, and above 200 m negative effects may also show up.
In order to protect the inland, natural or artificial dunes should be 2.5 m a.m.s.l. high
generally along the region coast except near the Po delta, where the particular coast
morphology generates surge prone conditions and where the dune level is raised up to 4.0 m
a.m.s.l..

57

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

6. Resulting CSIs
By Mark Davidson11
Coastal managers at each of the CoastView field sites were asked to specify relevant IBCSIs.
This section summarised the results of the workshop and subsequent input by partners. All of
the IBCSIs listed in these sections relate directly to coastal management issues (see Section
4). Summary tables are listed for each site:
Table 6.1 Egmond, Netherlands
Table 6.2 Teignmouth, UK
Table 6.3 El Puntal, Spain
Table 6.4 Lido di Dante, Italy
In each case the issue based CSIs listed include only those that have been prioritised by the
relevant national-scale coastal management at the respective sites, scientific CSIs are not
included. The CSIs have been ranked on a scale of one to four where:
1 Top Priority
2 Medium Priority
3 Low Priority (Management value under investigation)
4 Not specified as being important at this stage
For each site a start has been made in Tables 6.1-6.4 to specify:
a) To what accuracy the CSIs must be evaluated
b) At what temporal resolution they must be sampled
c) What spatial resolution of the quantities is required
d) Indicator standards or threshold values for CSIs. These are divided into target (optimal)
values and danger values beyond which some management intervention may be required.
Inspection of the Tables 6.1-6.4 shows that there is very little uniformity in the responses
given by the various coastal managers. There is substantial diversity in the definition of
IBCSIs even though the basic issues are similar. This results largely from deviations in
convention and definition between European states. Constructive advancement of towards
achieving the aims of the CoastView aims will demand a greater degree of uniformity in the
working definition of IBCSIs. An attempt to achieve greater uniformity is made in the
following section (6.1).

11

Institute of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK

58

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

Issue
Coastal
Safety

CSI (Issue Based)

CSI Report

Parameter

Momentary Coastline Location dune foot

(MKL)
(Mean low) water line
Bathymetric profile
between +3 and 8 m
Erosion profile
Location of erosion
profile after storm
Theoretical minimum Bathymetric profile
erosion profile
between 2nd dune row
and -20m
Design water level
Wave height
Wave direction
Bathymetric profile
between 0 and 20m
Natural dune stability Dune vegetation
Sand volume in
Bathymetric profile
coastal foundation
between 1st dune row
and 20m
LNCDune vegetation
values
Fauna, flora
Water quality
Human disturbance of
protected area
Emptiness of horizon
Presence of litter
Table 6.1a. Issue Based CSIs for Egmond

Who

Rank

UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL

1
1
1

UU, WL

UU, WL

UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL

1
1
1

UU, WL
UU, WL

1
1

UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL

3
3
3
3

UU, WL
UU, WL

3
3

Accuracy

Temporal
Resolution
Annual / Seasonal

Spatial Resolution

Threshold
Target
Danger

Post storm

59

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

Issue
User
functions
Recreation

Shipping
and
navigation

CSI (Issue Based)

Beach width

Beach quality
Quality of swimming
water
Quality for aquatic
sports
Swimmer safety
Occupancy of beach
Morphological
behaviour of channels
Number of ships
Hydrodynamic
circumstances

CSI Report

Parameter

Who

Rank

Location of dune foot UU, WL

(Mean high) water
UU, WL
line
For example litter
UU, WL
UU, WL

2
2

UU, WL

UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL
UU, WL

3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3

UU, WL

Location of channel
Depth of channel
Number of ships
Currents
Wave height
Wave direction

Business & Building contour

Industry
Residence Building contour
Figure 6.1b. Issue Based CSIs for Egmond

Accuracy

Temporal
Resolution

Spatial Resolution

Threshold
Target
Danger

3
3

60

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

ISSUE CSIs
Who
CSI
Littoral Volume
UPl
Elevation (selected
UPl
repeat profile)
Emerged Beach Width
UPl
Beach Elevation
UPl
Slope
UPl
HYDRODYN. Wave Height
UPl
Wave Period
UPl
Wave Direction
UPl
Sub-tidal Depths
UPl
Channel Location
UPl
Nearshore Currents
UPl
OFFSHORE Bar Position
UPl
BARS
Bar Height
UPl
HUMAN
Beach Use
UPl
Dredging
UPl
Shipping Activity
UPl
Table 6.2. Issue based CSIs for the Teignmouth
TYPE
BEACH

CSI Report

Rank Accuracy
2
1

5 cm

Temporal Resolution

Spatial Resolution

Threshold
Target
Danger

Weekly

1
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
2

61

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

ISSUE CSIs
TYPE
BEACH
STATE

CSI
Emerged Beach Width

Beach Slope
Position of Dune Foot
Dune Vegetation &
Flora
HYDRODYN. Wave Height
Wave Period
Nearshore currents
Sub-tidal water depth
OFFSHORE Bar Location
BARS
Bar Height
HUMAN
Beach Use
DUNES

Dredging

Who

Rank

Accuracy

Temporal
Resolution

Spatial Resolution

Threshold
Target
Dep. on
position
3-5
reference

Danger
Dep. on
position

3.0 m

UCa, CIIRC

1.0 m

Weekly / Storm

10 m

UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC

1
1
1

0.1
1.0 m

Weekly / Storm
Weekly / Storm
Monthly

10 m
10 m
4 m2

UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC
UCa, CIIRC

2
2
1
1
2
2
2

0.1 m
1s
0.1 m/s
0.25 m
5m
0.25 m
5% error

20 m
100 m
5m
10 m
10 m
10 m
100 m2

0.5 m
14 s
1 m/s
12 m

UCa, CIIRC

?*

Hourly
Hourly
Hourly
Weekly/ Storm
Weekly/ Storm
Weekly/ Storm
2 maps/day (13:00
and 17:00)
?*

?*

?*

2m
-10%

2 m/s
10 m

?*

Table 6.3 Issue Based CSIs For El Puntal

?* Depends on dredging vessel size and dredging procedures

63

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

TYPE
BEACH

DUNES

ISSUE CSIs
CSI
Littoral Volume
Shoreline Location
Emerged Beach Width
Beach Elevation
Position of Dune Foot

Dune Crest Height

Over Wash
Dune Vegetation &
Flora
HYDRODYN. Wave Height
Wave Period
Wave Direction
Tide

OFFSHORE
BARS
HUMAN

CSI Report

Who

Rank Accuracy

Temporal Resolution

Spatial Resolution

Semester
Every 3 months
Month
Month
Every 3 months & after
storm
Month
After storm
Annual (seasonal cycle)

100 m
1m
10 m
10 m
10 m
1m
1m
100 m

UBo-UFe
UBo-UFe
UBo-UFe
UBo-UFe
UBo-UFe

1
1
1
1
1

2 mc/m
0.5 m
1m
0.1
0.5 m

UFe
UFe
UFe

1
1
2

0.1 m
0.5 m

UBo
UBo
UBo
UBo

1
1
1
1

0.1m-5%
0.2s-5%
5
0.1m

Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour

10 m
1000 m
10 m
1000 m

1 knot
10
1m-5%
0.1 m/s

Hour

1000 m

Hour
Hour
Every 3 months
Every 3 months
Annual (seasonal &
diurnal cycle)
After works

100 m
10 m
100 m
100 m
100 m

Wind intensity &

direction
Surf Zone Width
Nearshore Currents
Bar Location
Bar Height
Beach Use

UBo

UBo
UBo
UFe
UFe
UBo

2
1
1.5
1.5
1

Nourishment

UBo

20 m3

Threshold
Target
Danger

50 m

20 m

2.5m

2m

3.0 m

0.1 m/s

0.8 m
a.m.s.l
40 knots
onshore
300 m
0.3 m/s

20 m

Table 6.4. Issue Based CSIs For Lido di Dante

65

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

6.1 Critical Analysis

6.1.1. The consistency problem
Inspection of Sections 5 of this report and Tables 6.1 to 6.4 show that there is a large degree
of variability between European user communities in the definition of management context
even though the management issues are similar. At the workshop the following management
contexts were suggested (See also section 4 of this report).
Coastal Protection
Recreation
Eco-system protection
Navigation
However, in section 5.1 the Dutch managers prefer their established themes of:
Coastal safety
Landscape, Nature, Culture values (LNC)
(Private) User functions.
Whereas in section 5.2.2 the UK managers suggest:
Flood defence
Navigation
Recreation
Transport
Clearly there is a large degree of overlap. The CoastView consortium needs to agree on
common headings in order to communicate efficiently and make progress towards common
goals.
These discrepancies in management context leads to further ambiguity in the definition of
issue based CSIs. Definition of IBCSIs also varies greatly between European states. Huntley
(Section 5, this volume) defines 11 general IBCSI (although this is not intended to be an
exhaustive list of possibilities):
Beach State IBCSI
Algal bloom/ seaweed ISBCSI
Subtidal water depths IBCSI
Wave conditions IBCSI
Nearshore currents IBCSI
Offshore bars IBCSI
Dune Condition IBCSI
Beach use IBCSI
Shipping activity IBCSI
Dredging activity IBCSI
Beach nourishment IBCSI
Each of these general IBCSIs are related to key management issues in Table 4.2.
Further integration of the headings above (to only 5) is presented on Tables 6.2 to 6.4:
Beach
Hydrodynamic
Offshore bars
Dunes
Human activity (includes
66

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

In Table 6.1 the Dutch managers recognise different and more extensive (23) groupings of
IBCSIs under different management contexts.
Coastal Safety
Momentary coastline (MKL)
Erosion profile
Theoretical minimum erosion profile
Design water level
Natural dune stability
Sand volume in coastal foundation
Landscape, Nature, Culture values (LNC) Values
Dune vegetation
Fauna, flora
Water quality
Human disturbance of protected area
Emptiness of horizon
Presence of litter
User Function - recreation
Beach width
Beach quality
Quality of swimming water
Quality for aquatic sports
Swimmer safety
Occupancy of beach
Morphological behaviour of channels
User Function - Shipping and navigation
Number of ships
Hydrodynamic circumstances
User Function - Business & Industry
Building contour
User Function - Residence
Building contour
Many of the above general IBCSI in the Dutch system listed above do not yet have
measurable parameters assigned at this time and may not be practically measurable using
coastal video systems.
Again uniformity in the definition of IBCSIs is required in order to make constructive
progress.
6.1.2. A universal scheme for IBCSIs?
An attempt is made in Table 6.5 to integrate the IBCSI systems mentioned above, largely
based on the management context and matching issues laid out in Section 4, but also
including other issued based CSIs included in Tables 6.1 to 6.4. Again this list is not
designed to be all-inclusive at this stage and will require substantial future adjustment.
Table 6.5 focuses on those parameters that are potentially measurable with coastal video
systems and is a modification and extension of that presented in Section 4 of this report.
67

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

Using this framework it has been possible to represent virtually all the suggested CSIs for all
four sites in Table 6.5 (although sometimes CSIs may appear under a different headings).
The various IBCSI headings in Table 6.5 have been carefully selected such that individual
CSIs listed under them are uniquely defined under only one general IBCSI heading. This
methodology was selected in order to aid the process of ranking the resulting CSIs in order of
priority. It may be appropriate in the future to mention individual CSIs under more than one
IBCSI heading. For example Dune foot location has relevance to Beach State and Dune
Conditions. Another example of an IBCSI that is not yet included in Table 6.5 is User Safety.
A general User Safety IBCSI might include the individual CSIs of wave height, beach
classification, rip-current (strength & location) and longshore currents, all of which are
mentioned under different headings in Table 6.5. Indeed in Table 6.1 there are examples of
where CSIs (e.g. wave height) have been attached to more than one IBSCI heading. Where
this is the case the highest ranking (lowest numerical value) has been included in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 is intended to show the relative importance of the various CSIs discussed in the
workshop as indicated by the combined rankings (average score) awarded by the various
coastal managers. Here the average scores are in the range of 1 to 4 with a score of 1
representing the most important CSIs.
Where a given coastal manager has not indicated that a parameter is important at their site a
ranking of 4 (the lowest score) was recorded. However, at this stage coastal managers have
not necessarily been privy to the complete integrated list of CSIs and it is probable that after
further inspection of Table 6.5 the importance of some CSIs may have to be increased.
Parameters with a numerically rounded value of 3 or less must be considered as a priority
(highlighted in red in Table 6.5). The highest ranking parameters at this stage (those that
numerically round to 1) appear to be the beach profile, beach width and wave height. This
prioritisation is the result of the initial analysis of the problem from the IBCSIs perspective.
Thus, it must be considered as the starting point and the figures given here are not
necessarily the final/definitive ones as it is usual in this kind of analysis.
Notice also that the CSI accuracy, spatial and temporal resolution and thresholds have not
been specified in Table 6.5. This is an intentional omission as this table integrates data from
all sites and it is anticipated that these values will in most cases be site specific. It is clear
however that definition of CSIs and corresponding accuracy, resolution and threshold
values requires substantial further work and that these topics will be re-visited and redefined throughout the project as more experience is gained.
6.2 Generic and Site-specific CSIs
CSIs can be further grouped in to generic and site-specific CSIs. Generic CSIs are those that
can potentially be applied at all coastal sites. The generic CSIs have been highlighted in bold
in Table 6.5 below. An example of a generic CSI is wave height. A site specific CSI might be
channel location which is only appropriate in coastal areas where there is a navigable channel.
It should be noted that the ranking system presented in this section is biased towards generic
CSIs as the CoastView field sites are by design very diverse.

68

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI
(CSIs in bold are generic CSIs. Non-bold CSIs are site-specific
CSIs)

Beach State

Environmental

Sub-tidal water depths

Wave Conditions

Nearshore Currents

Offshore Bars

Dune conditions

Beach volume
Beach profile (inter- / sub- tidal) (includes beach slope /
elevation)
Beach width
Beach contours (including LW & HW)
Maps of algal blooms / seaweed
Human disturbance of protected area
Presence of litter
Emptiness of horizon
Water quality (colour)
Sub-tidal morphology
Channel location
Channel depth
Slope of sides of channel
Wave height
Wave period
Wave direction
Surfzone width
Long-term wave statistics
Rip-currents (strength / location)
Longshore currents
Tidal flow / flow in channel
Bar location
Bar height
Classification of beach morphology
Dune height
Position of dune foot

Priority Level
1. Top Priority
2. Medium Priority
3. Low Priority (Management value under
investigation)
4. Not specified as being important at this stage
NL
UK
SP
IT
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
4
1
3
1
4
1
3
3
2
4
4
4
1
1

1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4

1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
1
4

1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
4
1
1

Average Score
(Scale: 1-4)

General ISBCSI

CSI Report

2.00
1.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
1.75
3.00
3.00
4.00
1.25
2.25
2.25
3.50
3.25
2.50
2.50
2.25
2.63
2.63
4.00
1.75
2.50

69

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

Beach use

Shipping Activity

Dredging
Beach Nourishment
Building Developments
(residential, business &
industry)

CSI Report

Dune flora (extent / health)

Salt spray measure
Overwash
Location of users
Duration of visit
Nature of use
Density of users
Number of passages
Location of passages
Types of vessel
Location (including spoil dumps
Frequency
Beach state
Mapping evolution of nourishment
Building contour

1
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3

4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4

1
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4

2
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
4

2.00
4.00
3.25
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.25
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.25
3.25
3.75

Building locations

3.75

Table 6.4. A Universal Scheme For IBCSIs and CSIs? This table provides a first attempt at numerically ranking CSIs in order of importance to coastal
managers. The table will also form the basis of further discussion, and the ultimate aim, through these discussions, and through demonstration
of CSIs in practice using the video system, is to develop a Europe-wide understanding of best practice for the provision of CSIs for coastal
management.

70

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

7. Future work
By Mark Davidson12
The initial CSI workshop has provided a solid foundation and focus for the CoastView
Project. However, the previous section has highlighted sever important outstanding issues.
This section summarises some of the remaining technical/scientific tasks to be achieved over
the remaining three years of the project.
Modification of issue based CSIs
The issue based CSIs defined in this report will be reviewed at each of the six monthly
CoastView meetings, allowing continual discussion between managers and users and
subsequent refinement of these parameters throughout the project.
Ranking of CSIs, Site Specific & Generic CSIs
In the previous section an initial attempt has been made to group issue based CSIs into sitespecific and generic categories. Furthermore, the consortiums coastal managers have ranked
these parameters in order to reflect their relative importance. This listing and ranking of CSIs
will continue to evolve over the remainder of the project via review and discussions between
scientist and coastal managers at CoastView workshops.
Precise definitions for CSIs
It is clear from Section 5 and 6 of this report that although there are substantial differences in
the number and type of parameters currently used to monitor the coastal zone in different
European countries there is also some consistency in the prioritised IBCSIs (at least with
some of the more generic CSIs). However, the precise definition of these parameters has not
been specified. Indeed the definition of existing indices varies between European states. No
attempt has yet been made in this report to pinpoint precise definitions. It is acknowledged
that the definition of video based CSIs will be a compromise between, what is optimal, and
what is possible with video. The precise definition of video-derived IBSCIs will be an
important aspect of the future work conducted in the CoastView project. It is also apparent
that there may be substantial redundancy in the CSIs listed in Table 6.5. For example beach
width might be considered to be a derivative of the low water line and high water line. At this
stage of the project was agreed that the listing of potentially important CSIs should be kept as
broad as possible with the potential of eliminating redundant CSIs later in the project.
Algorithm development
Having defined a working set of IBCSIs the next CoastView step is to modify existing
routines and develop new algorithms for the extraction of this information from video images.
The results generated by these algorithms will be presented at six-monthly CoastView
meeting and the value of the algorithms and the resulting CSIs will be assessed. The
application of these algorithms to a large number of images at each site will provide a good
indication of the range of natural variability of key CSIs and assist in the establishment of
accurate indicator standards (threshold values).
Accuracy, resolution and thresholds
In section 5 of this report some attempt was made to specify the required accuracy, spatial and
temporal resolution and threshold values for each issue based CSIs. These values were in
12

Institute of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK
71

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

some instances based on existing values obtained via alternative techniques (other than
video), but in other cases were simply best guesses at the most appropriate value. In many
cases no values at al were defined. Again this will be another area where continued additional
input and refinement will be required.
Prediction
Forecasting the temporal evolution of issue based CSIs will also form an important aspect of
future research within the project. Southgate (2002, Section 3 this volume) has highlighted
important parallels between the dynamic behaviour of CSIs and resilience theory. Statistical
analysis of dynamic CSIs and predictive models for the temporal evolution of CSIs are
potentially exciting new research in the CoastView project.
Science Based CSIs
It is recognised that CSIs not only have value to the field of coastal zone management, they
are also potentially of great value to scientific research. Although the central focus of
CoastView is on practical coastal zone management, scientific advances are also of high
importance and should not be neglected.
From a management perspective scientific input is also required in order to define what
variables must be measured to properly describe a specific coastal function.
Field Measurements
Two sorts of supporting field measurements will be required. These include both short and
long-term measurements.
a) Short-term measurements:
The intensive process measurements are designed to provide data with a greater temporal
resolution and broader spatial coverage than the long-term monitoring. Intensive in-situ
process data will be collected at each of the four field sites that will typically include
measurements of wave, currents and sediment transport processes. Measurements will be
made for a 3 to 4 week period at each site. The specific data collection at each site should be
planned with due regard to the CSIs defined in this report. The data requirements like some
CSIs will inevitably be site specific. However, it is envisaged that typical processmeasurements will include:
Accurate measurements of bathymetry
Eulerian measurement of flows
Measurement of wave parameters (height, period, direction, spectra)
Video tracking of Lagrangian surface drifters
Measurement of sediment transport processes (flows and sediment suspension)
Measurement of beach use
The precise form of the field measurement campaigns will be the main topic of discussion in
the 2nd six-monthly CoastView meeting (Sept. 2002).
The aim will be to obtain ground truth measurements for the video estimates over a range of
incident wave conditions and a greater spatial scale than the long-term monitoring. These
measurements will allow the determination of the accuracy of video derived CSIs.
These experiments will involve combining the efforts and expertise and equipment resources
of an international group of scientists at each of the field sites. These experiments are not
however designed to be large-scale multi-agency fieldwork efforts like many of the previous
European coastal projects. Instead a much smaller number of focused measurements will be
made specifically to validate video estimates of CSIs.
72

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

b) Long-term monitoring:
In addition to the more intensive process measurements described above specific long-term
monitoring requirements have been defined for each of the field sites. These minimum
requirements include:
1. Hourly measurement of offshore wave parameters and water levels
2. Six-monthly bathymetric surveys
These measurements will be maintained for the three-year duration of the CoastView Project.
These measurements will also serve as valuable ground-truth for video derived estimates of
wave parameters and bathymetry but more importantly provide information on the forcing
processes responsible for the long-term morphological evolution monitored by the video
system. This will be an essential input to WP4 that is concerned (in part) with modelling the
long-term evolution of coastal state.
The protocols for the collection and archiving of field data are laid out in the CoastView Data
Strategy Document.
Improved Video Systems
This unit of work will involve research and development into the production of reliable,
robust and user-friendly video systems for the monitoring of CSIs. This work will involve
improvements to the existing hardware infrastructure, improved camera configuration design
tools for end users and developments to standard analysis software.
Standard analysis software will be improved through the development of new algorithms for:
The automatic detection of camera movement
The automatic location of surveyed ground control points
The determination of poor image quality due to fog, glare and dark images
Coupling external oceanographic & meteorological data (e.g. wave parameters, wind
conditions etc) with images
Merging images from multiple cameras
Image presentation
The provision of real-time data
Two new video systems will also be deployed at Lido di Dante and El Puntal.

73

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

8. References
Aarninkhof, S.G.J. and Holman, R.A. 1999. Monitoring the nearshore with video.
Backscatter, 10 (2), 8-11.
Andreasen, J.K., ONeill, R.V., Noss, R. and Slosser, N.C. 2001. Considerations for the
development of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecological Indicators, 1, 21-35.
Berger, A.R. 1997a. Assessing rapid environmental changes using geoindicators.
Environmental Geology, 32, 36-44.
Berger, A.R. 1997b. Natural environmental change: a challenge to the DSR approach. In:
Moldan, B. and Billharz, D. (eds.), Sustainability indicators. Report of the project on
indicators of sustainable development. SCOPE, Wiley.
Berger, A.R. and Hodge, R.A. 1998. Natural change in the environment: a challenge to the
pressure-state-response concept. Social Indicators Research, 44, 255-265.
Bush, D.M., Neal, W.J., Young, R.S. and Pilkey, O.H. 1999. Utilization of geoindicators for
rapid assessment of coastal-hazard risk and mitigation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 42,
647-670.
Cairns, J., McCormick, P.V. and Niederlehner, B.R. 1993. A proposed framework for
developing indicators of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia, 236, 1-44.
Capobianco, M., deVriend, H.J., Nicholls, R. and Stive, M.J.F. 1999. Coastal area impact and
vulnerability assessment: the point of view of the morphodynamic modeller. Journal of
Coastal Research, 15, 3, 7021-716.
Chapman, D.M. 1992. Information management in beach planning. Coastal Management, 20,
203-217.
CoastView Consortium. 2002. CoastView WorkProgramme.
Dale, V.H. and Beyeler, S.C. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological
indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1, 3-10.
Davidson, M. 2002. Resulting CSIs. Coastal State Indicators Report, 1st report of CoastView
Project (this volume).
De Vriend, H.J. 1991. Mathematical modelling and large-scale coastal behaviour, part I:
Physical processes. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 29, 727-740.
De Vriend, H.J., Capobianco, M., Chescher, T., de Swart, H.E., Latteux, B. and Stive, M.J.F.
1994. Long-term modelling of coastal morphology. Coastal Engineering, 21, 225-269.
Donella, H. and Meadows. 1972. The Limits of Growth. Universe books, New York.
Donella, H. and Meadows. 1992. Beyond the Limits. Earth Scan Publications, London.
EAA, 1998. Europes Environment. The Second Assessment.
Gallopn, G.C. 1997. Indicators and their use: information for decision-making. In: Moldan,
B. and Billharz, D. (eds.), Sustainability indicators. Report of the project on indicators of
sustainable development. SCOPE, Wiley.
Gutirrez-Espeleta, E.E. 1998. Designing environmental indicators for decision makers. In:
Statistics for Economic and Social Developments, INIEGI, Mejico.
Hodge, R.A. 1997. Toward a conceptual framework for assessing progress towards
sustainability. Social Indicators Research, 40, 5-98.
Holman, R.A., Sallenger, A.H., Lippmann, T.C. and Haines, J.W. 1993. The application of
video image processing to the study of nearshore processes. Oceanography, 6, 3.
Huntley, D. 2002. A new context for CSIs. Coastal State Indicators Report, 1st report of
CoastView Project (this volume).
Jackson, L.E., Kurtz, J.C. and Fisher, W.S. 2000. Evaluation guidelines for ecological
indicators. US EPA, EPA/620/R-99/005.
Jesinghaus, J. 1999. A European System of Environmental Pressure Indices. First Volume of
the Environmental Pressure Indices Handbook: The Indicators Part I: Introduction to the
political and theoretical background. Report for Eurostat, EU Commission.
Jesinghaus, J. 2000. Indicators for decision-making. Report for EU Commission,
JCR/ISIS/MIA, Ispra.
74

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

Jimnez, J.A. and Cceres, A. 2002. An index to predict coastal infrastructures sensitivity in
sandy beaches. Draft paper (in Spanish).
Johnson, B. L. 1999. Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management - scientifically
sound, socially challenged?. Conservation Ecology, 3(1): 10. [online] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art10
Kaly, U., Briguglio, L., McLeod, H., Schmall, S., Pratt, C. and Pal, R. 1998. Environmental
vulnerability index (EVI) to summarise national environmental vulnerability profiles.
Executive Summary, SOPAC, Fiji Islands.
Kelly, J.R. and Harwell, M.A. 1990. Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environmental
Management, 14, 527-545.
Klein et. al., 1998. Resilience and Vulnerability: Coastal Dynamics or Dutch Dikes?, Geog.
J., 164, 3.
Kurtz, J.C., Jackson, L.E. and Fisher, W.S. 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based on
guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agencys Office of Research and
Development. Ecological Indicators, 1, 49-60.
LOICZ, 1998. Towards Integrated Modelling and Analysis in Coastal Zones. Principles and
Practices. LOICZ Reports and Studies no 11, den Burg.
Malvarez-Garca,G.,Pollard, J. and Domnguez-Rodrguez, R. 2000. Origins, management
and measurement of stress on the coast of Southern Spain. Coastal Management, 28, 215234.
Morton, R.A. 2002. Coastal geoindicators of environmental change in the humid tropics.
Environmental Geology, (in press).
Mulder, J.P.M., Van Koningsveld, M., Owen, M.W. and Rawson, J. 2001. Tools and
Guidelines for Coastal Zone Management. Applicable to problems on sandy coasts, tidal
inlets, river and estuary mouths. End report CZM tools group COAST3D, Report
RIKZ/2001.020. EU Mast project no. MAS3-CT97-0086.
OECD, 1994. Project and Policy Appraisal. Integrating Economics and Environment. Paris.
Pykh, Y.A., Hyatt, D.E. and Lenz, R.J.M. (eds.). 1999. Environmental indices: system
analysis approach. EOLSS Publishers, Oxford.
Rapport, D. And Friend, A. 1979. Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental
statistics: a stress-response approach. Statistics Canada Catalogue 11-510, Minister of
Supply and Services Canada.
Snchez-Arcilla, A., Jimnez, J.A. and Valdemoro, H.I. 1998. The Ebro delta:
morphodynamics and vulnerability. Journal of Coastal Research, 14, 3, 754-772.
Short, A.D. and Hogan, C.L. 1994. Rip currents and beach hazards: their impact on public
safety and implications for coastal management. Journal of Coastal Research, Sp. Iss. 12,
Coastal Hazards, 197-209.
Soulsby, R.L. 1998. Coastal Sediment Transport: the COAST3D Project. Proc. 26th Int. Conf.
Coastal Eng., ASCE, 2548-2558.
Suter, G.W. 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 12, 1533-1539.
Valdemoro, H.I., Jimnez, J.A. and Snchez-Arcilla, A. 2001. Vulnerability of wetlands to
coastal changes. A methodological approach with application to the Ebro delta. In:
Villacampa et al. (Eds), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development III, Advances in
Ecological Series, 10, WIT Press, 595-604.
Van der Weide, J. and Van Koningsveld, M. 2002. Enabling mechanisms for integrated
coastal management. Matching theory and practice. Nato Science Series - Balkan
workshop on coastal management, (in press).
Van der Weide, J., 1993. A Systems View of Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean &
Coastal Management, 21, 129-148.
Van Koningsveld, M. and Mulder, J.P.M. 2002. Matching specialist knowledge and end user
needs. Z3191, report WL|delft hydraulics, prepared for RIKZ.
75

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

Van Koningsveld, M., Stive, M.J.F., Mulder, J.P.M., de Vriend, H.J., Ruessink, B.G. and
Dunsbergen, D.W. 2002. Usefulness and effectiveness of coastal research. A matter of
perception? Z3191, report WL|delft hydraulics, prepared for RIKZ. (Submitted to the
Journal of Coastal Research).
Walters, C.J. and Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by
doing. Ecology, 71, 2060-2068.

76

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

9. Appendix:
9.1 Presentations
The following are a list of the presentations made at the 1st CoastView meeting held at
Egmond aan Zee, 1-3/05/2002. They have been included on a CD which is attached to this
document.
CoastView_M1_01_Davidson-Huntley
CoastView_M1_02_Martin1
CoastView_M1_03_Van Koningsveld
CoastView_M1_04_Holman1
CoastView_M1_05_DeKruif
CoastView_M1_06_Wierda
CoastView_M1_07_Kroon
CoastView_M1_08_Rawson
CoastView_M1_09_Kingston
CoastView_M1_10_Jimenez
CoastView_M1_11_Martin2a
CoastView_M1_11_Martin2b
CoastView_M1_12_Tirindelli
CoastView_M1_13_Huntley
CoastView_M1_14_Holman2
CoastView_M1_15_Stanley

77

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

CSI Report

9.2 Workshop Agenda

Day
Wed. 1
May

Time
AM
09:30

11:00
11:30

Wed .1
May

13:00
PM
14:00
14:05

14:40
15:15
15:45
16:20
16:55
17:30
19:30
Thur. 2
May

AM
08:30
09:05
09:40
10:10
10:30
11:05

11:40
12:00
13:00

Function
Administrative details: (Chair Mark Davidson)
Project overview (Mark Davidson & David Huntley)
Contracts & intellectual property rights (Kate Bowling)
Reporting (Kate Bowling)
Management structure
Coffee Break
Fieldwork (Planned activity & timing)
Safety & risk assessment
Meetings
Data handling & management
Dissemination & exploitation (Workshops & web sites, Raul Medina?)
ELOISE
AOB (Inc. A note on Framework 6, David Huntley)
Lunch
CSI Workshop (Chair: David Huntley).
Talks are approximately 25 mins + 10 mins discussion/ questions

Introduction - CSI Workshop (David Huntley)

Summary of Coast 3D Coastal Zone Management Tools (Mark van
Koningsveld + Jane Rawson)
Methodology for the definition of CSIs

Historical developments in Argus & scientific achievements to date.

(Rob Holman?).

Tea Break
Egmond, The Netherlands
Dutch management problems
probable CSIs. (Arno de Kruif / Ruud
Spanhoff)
Site description, scientific research to date & future science goals,
recent Argus work
probable CSIs? (Aart Kroon)
Discussion: What are useful CSIs & what can we do with video?
Close
Informal Framework 6 discussions (in the bar?)
Continuation of the CSI Workshop (Chair: Marcel Stive)
Teignmouth UK
UK Management problems
probable CSIs (Jane Rawson)
Site description, scientific research to date & future science goals,
recent Argus work
probable CSIs (Mark Davidson / Ken Kingston)
Discussion: What are useful CSIs & what can we do with video?
Coffee
El Puntal, Spain
Coastal Management Problems in Span
probable CSIs? (Jose
Jimenez)
Specific management problems at El Puntal. Site description, scientific
research to date & future science goals
probable CSIs? (Paco
Martin)
Discussion: What are useful CSIs & what can we do with video?
Lunch
Coast Visit: Jan van Speyk video station.
78

CoastView, May 2002Nov-02

Thur. 2
May

PM
14:00
14:35

15:10
15:45
16:15

Fri. 3
May

19:30
AM
09:00

10:30
11:00

Fri 3

11:30
12:00
PM
13:00

CSI Report

Lido di Dante, Italy (Chair: Jane Rawson)

Italian management problems
probable CSIs. (Alberto Lamberti)
Site description & scientific research to date & future science goals.
(Alberto Lamberti - Defended coast, Paolo Ciavola - Undefended
coast)
Discussion: What are useful CSIs & what can we do with video?
Tea
Plenary session & final decisions on a working set of CSIs (Chair:
David Huntley)
Close
Steering Committee Meeting
Fieldwork & Argus Developments (Chair: Alberto Lamberti)
Fieldwork plans & Argus installations - When? Who works where?
Who does what? What measurements are needed in view of the
selected CSIs?
Coffee
Future developments in Argus and the need to stay coherent
(CoastView & Argus) in future world-wide developments.(Rob
Holman)
Argus III, the digital version (John Stanley)
Lunch

Field trip to the Dutch coast (
Airport for some partners)

79