Editor’s Comments: Should We Stay or Should We Go?

Dec. 21, 2015

The UK’S National Trust—a membership-based organization that protects natural sites as well as historic buildings—has begun advocating a different approach to coping with coastal erosion. The country needs to abandon its “Churchillian” attitude of “holding the line,” the organization says, and consider letting some areas go.

The Trust, responsible for 775 miles of coastline, is acknowledging that not all of it can be protected; rising sea levels and the associated increases in coastal erosion and flooding are inevitable. In 2013 and 2014, for example, storms and high tides caused damage that would normally be expected only over a much longer period. “Rather than trying to simply stop change, such as coastal erosion, we plan ahead for change, protecting wildlife and adapting our own buildings and activities,” the Trust says. “Coastal ‘defence’ as the only response to managing coastal change looks increasingly less plausible.”

Instead, the Trust is putting in place various coastal adaptation strategies over the next five years, with the general theme of “rolling back”: relocating buildings, infrastructure, and even habitat. “We must be driven by long-term sustainable plans, not short-term engineered defences,” the Trust’s Coast and Marine Advisor says in the organization’s report Shifting Shores 2015 (available at http://bit.ly/1OT4rIp).

Rolling back is easier in concept than in practice, however. In the US, roughly 123 million people—close to 40% of us—live near the coasts. Many cities are adopting zoning restrictions to limit new development in high-risk areas, but in others—New York City, for example—a new wave of expensive condos and hotels is being built right on the waterfront. A New York real-estate agent said, in an article last year on the city’s development, “Everybody’s going to build wherever they can, every inch. Unless we are permanently underwater, I don’t think there will be much change.”

Sometimes physical coastal defenses are necessary because there is really nowhere else to go, or because the cost of doing nothing is too great. The state of Florida has a mean elevation of just 100 feet above sea level, for example—lower in most coastal regions—so moving to higher ground isn’t an option. And a recent report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that the “ocean economy”—the areas and economic sectors bordering the oceans and Great Lakes—is growing four times faster than the US economy as a whole, so there is strong financial incentive to stay put.

What’s the right balance? If you live in a coastal region, are there zoning restrictions or “rollback” plans in place to limit development or relocate critical infrastructure? How do the scope of those efforts compare to the investment in physical defenses—sea walls, floodgates, beach nourishment, wetland restoration, and similar measures?

And if you’re someplace inland, how much emphasis do you think the US should be placing on protecting coastal property and infrastructure? Many have argued that the National Flood Insurance Program requires people outside the coastal zones to bear an excessive burden. (An article in the May 2014 issue of Stormwater magazine explores the issue in detail. It’s available at http://bit.ly/1Na3mtI.) Do you agree?

About the Author

Janice Kaspersen

Janice Kaspersen is the former editor of Erosion Control and Stormwater magazines.