Response of coastal zone management programs to sea level rise in the United States

Abstract

State coastal zone management programs are responding to the potential impacts of accelerated sea level rise through a wide range of activities and policies. This article provides a brief overview of the Coastal Zone Management Act and other federal laws that provide the basis for coastal state regulatory activities. It surveys the level of response to sea level rise by state coastal management programs in 24 marines coastal states, from formal recognition to implementation of policies addressing the issue. Individual state CZMP responses and policies that have been implemented or proposed are categorized. The adaptation of sea level rise to ongoing institutional objectives is discussed and policy constraints and trends are summarized.     

Federal consistency and state expectations

Abstract

The requirement in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 that federal projects be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs is an important incentive for states to complete their programs. As a condition of program approval, states must first consult with the federal agencies concerned and provide opportunities for comment, with the hope of avoiding conflicts. The consistency requirement is also subject to various exceptions whose scope remains to be determined. One such exception of uncertain extent is the exclusion from the coastal zone of federal lands “the use of which is subject solely to the sole discretion ... of the Federal Government....”; Despite these uncertainties, however, the consistency provision represents a major change in federal policy, which has traditionally allowed federal agencies to operate largely without concern for state land or water use requirements.     

Boundaries of the coastal zone: A survey of state laws

Abstract

A survey of coastal state legislation reveals several types of statutes affecting activities occurring in coastal regions: Coastal management statutes, wetland statutes, and shoreline statutes. Each coastal state has adopted methods to delineate coastal areas or features, whether an entire coastal zone, a limited feature such as wetlands, or shorelands. Boundary delineation is done according to linear measurements, political boundaries, roads and highways, vegetation, elevation, tidal flow, and other factors. An appendix is provided containing state statutory provisions relating to boundary‐delineation techniques.     

Opportunities for a state‐federal partnership in an expanded territorial sea

Abstract

The United States currently has a 3‐mile territorial sea limit which is under the jurisdiction of coastal states. In the event the United States joins with other countries in adopting a 12‐mile territorial sea, Congress may consider extending state jurisdiction to 12 miles. It may be in the best interest of coastal states to oppose extension and instead support a strengthened federal‐state ocean management regime which disregards boundary lines and is based on the sharing of outer continental shelf leasing revenues along with a guaranteed role for coastal states in federal decision‐making.     

The Quiet Revolution in Visual Resource Management: A view from the coast

Abstract

This introductory piece traces the growth of knowledge and activity associated with visual resource management in general. A specific framework of questions regarding methods of coastal zone visual resource management is presented. The state‐of‐the‐art in methodological studies is listed for each question, and the methodological questions are related to the major articles with the special issue of the Coastal Zone Management Journal. Major legal federal statutes, state statutes, and court cases are reviewed in light of visual resource management in the coastal zone. The remaining articles within the special issue that deal with integration of VRM into decision‐making are then arrayed against a management framework. This framework includes regulatory situations for (1) public land management and planning, (2) public projects involving private lands, and (3) public regulation of private projects.     

Western Australia's nonstatutory approach to coastal zone management: An evaluation

Abstract

Western Australia is fortunate that there have been few natural disasters on the coast. However, low levels of coastal erosion during the 1970s demonstrated the need to establish coastal zone management in that state of Australia. The erosion was quickly contained because private ownership to the high water mark is almost nonexistent, private property being set back behind coastal reserves along most of the coast. The provision of coastal reserves has been part of a deliberate nonstatutory coastal planning and management approach. As a result Western Australia has been able to use existing acts, coordination between existing government agencies, and coastal policies rather than enact specific coastal legislation to manage the coast.     

Perceptions of the performance of state coastal zone management programs in the United States. II. Regional and state comparisons

A mail survey of coastal user groups, academics, and state coastal zone management program managers was conducted to determine the perceptions of the performance of state coastal zone management programs relative to the protection of coastal resources, the management of coastal development, the improvement of public access, and the management of coastal hazards. Information on the perceived importance of the selected issues to each of the 24 states being studied was also solicited. Findings on the perceptions of various categories of interest groups, academics, and program managers with respect to the overall performance of state coastal zone management programs in the four issue areas were presented in an earlier article, “Perceptions of the Performance of State Coastal Zone Management Programs in the United States”; (Knecht et al., 1996). The present article draws on a subset of these data—the responses from the coastal user groups and the academics—and presents the findings at the regional and individual state level. In terms of perceived performance of state coastal zone management programs on a regional basis relative to the selected issue areas, the highest rating went to the Great Lakes region for its management of public access. However, the North Atlantic region received the highest performance rating for the three other issue areas: protection of coastal resources, management of coastal development, and management of coastal hazards. Looking at state performance with regard to the coastal issues judged to be of most importance to the states—the protection of coastal resources and the management of coastal development—respondents indicated that states should improve their performance in both areas, with the greatest need related to the management of coastal development. Overall, the states of the North Atlantic, Great Lakes, and South Atlantic regions were perceived to be performing somewhat better relative to the four issue areas than the states in the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico regions. While the data do not shed light on the reasons for these regional differences, we suggest that, in the case of the Pacific region at least, the differences could be associated with higher expectations among the resident population with regard to environmental quality in general and coastal management in particular.     

Conservation and development in Oregon's coastal zone

Abstract

Coastal zone management in Oregon is based on the state's general land‐use law. This body of law is designed to deal with population increase, urbanization, and preservation of agricultural land, as well as with other problems throughout the state. Early planning and policy recommendations for the coast were in the hands of a commission having predominantly local membership. This commission produced an extensive series of studies, policies, and recommendations which were assembled as a proposed management tool for natural resources. Staff of the commission was then absorbed into the state land‐management agency, which developed final goals and guidelines for compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. Adoption of the coastal goals in December 1976 has triggered deadlines for local government compliance within the coastal zone. The management program is now undergoing federal review.     

Decentralized Coastal Zone Management in Malaysia and Indonesia: A Comparative Perspective 1

Transferring decision-making process from central to local government and enhancing the role of local communities in managing coastal zones is an increasing commitment by governments in Southeast Asia. This article analyzes decentralized coastal zone management in two neighboring countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. The Federal system in Malaysia is argued to be able to influence more decentralized coastal zone management and to promote community-based management approaches. Meanwhile, the large diversity of coastal resources and communities combined with a still as yet tested decentralization policy in Indonesia is argued to bring more challenges in implementing the decentralization and community-based approaches in coastal zones. The lessons learned in this study provide insight in how far decentralized coastal zone management has taken place in Malaysia and Indonesia. The significant differences in the pattern of coastal zone management in these two countries are discussed in detail. This study recognizes that co-management and community-based approaches can be appropriate in dealing with coastal zone management. This comparative perspective is important to the development of a bigger picture of sustainable coastal zone management processes and cross-regional knowledge-sharing in Southeast Asia.     

Upstream pollution sources and coastal water quality protection in North Carolina

Abstract

A watershed‐based approach to water quality management is necessary for protecting coastal water quality, but the relative importance of inland pollution sources on estuaries is often overestimated. This can lead to a misallocation of coastal water protection resources and ignorance of coastal zone pollution sources. This overestimation of upstream contributions is attributable to a failure to recognize that many estuaries have little or no inland drainage area, the confusion of basinwide pollutant loading with pollutant delivery to estuaries, the low delivery ratios for many pollutants within drainage basins, and disproportionately high pollutant delivery for sources within the coastal zone. Examples are given from North Carolina. As a general rule, resources expended on pollution control within or near the coastal zone will result in more coastal water quality improvement per unit effort than resources expended upstream.     

Assessment of coastal zone issues in the Republic of Korea

Abstract

The physical characteristics of Korea have had a profound impact on the uses of the coastal zone that have, in turn, been determined by and reinforced the nation's economic development strategy. While coastal zone management in many developed economies is more heavily oriented toward environmental protection and the resolution of user conflicts, policies for coastal zone management in Korea have emphasized the role of coastal space and other resources for economic development and industrial needs. Increasing demand for land reclamation to provide ever‐increasing industrial sites and human settlements, traditional and future needs of the fishery, and concern for the environment have led to a vast array of competition and, finally, often to conflicts. The basic pattern of coastal zone use in Korea has changed from the linear expansion of coastal zone to integrated coastal uses. An increased number of critical coastal zone issues and interactions was reflected in the creation of new governance that dealt with coastal zone resources and environment.     

Implementing coastal zone management: 1972–1990

Abstract

The implementation history of the Coastal Zone Management Act offers insights into the process of long‐term intergovernmental policy implementation. This five‐stage history is explained as a coproduction process, in which coastal state, environmental, and development advocacy coalitions interacted with congressional committees and the federal coastal office to shape coastal policy and manage coastal development. The coproduction approach proved invaluable during the Reagan assault on the coastal program, when the states and Congress assumed responsibility for keeping the program alive. Acknowledging underlying stakeholder dynamics as the basis for coastal program evaluation could strengthen future coastal management implementation.     

Integrating visual management into the coastal zone planning process: The Massachusetts experience

Abstract

This paper concerns the limitations on integrating visual management into the coastal zone planning process as exemplified by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a state with a strong tradition of “home rule”; and a CZM implementation program based on a “networking”; of existing state authorities. The implications of the Massachusetts experience are that: (a) management of esthetic resources at the state level continues to be much less of a priority than management of ecological resources such as wetlands or floodplains; (b) visual management has yet to engender a strongly supportive constituency beyond that concerned with historic preservation; (c) project review focusing on visual impacts may be a more appropriate activity for local rather than state government; and (d) the technical aspects of visual management or impact assessment are far more advanced than their political acceptability. Political realities, together with the decision that implementation of the program should be based on a networking of existing authorities, thus determined the degree to which visual management could be incorporated into the state's program. As a result, the program's principal instruments of visual management became a strengthening of existing programs such as Wild and Scenic Rivers, reliance on wetland protection statutes to indirectly protect natural scenic values, and the use of the federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act to foster focused growth patterns through provision of publicly funded infrastructures. Esthetically oriented project review, with the exception of potential impacts on historic sites, was left to the discretion of local government, and a technical assistance program was created to provide funding or professional skills to communities interested in developing their own esthetic controls or design review processes. Maine, Rhode Island, and other New England states have followed a similar course.     

Cooperative tourism and the coastal zone

Abstract

Most tourist development takes place in the coastal zone. Concentrated tourist use continues in spite of opposition by groups who feel that any tourism, especially international, threatens both the natural environment and local values. Although shorelines and “coastscapes”; belong to all, decisions regarding them are made by relatively few. The number of community organizations involved in coastal zone management decisions varies from almost none in some Third World countries to dozens in places like Hawaii or California. Constructive use of coastal zones requires an understanding of the interactions between biophysical and social systems. Planning tourism in this context requires that all groups with an interest in the coastal zone join in a new “cooperative tourism”; in which all contribute to decisions and face ultimate responsibilities.     

Support for Oregon land‐use planning: A multi‐level analysis

Abstract

This article analyzes support for and opposition to state land‐use planning in Oregon, using voting records from the 1976 referendum to repeal Oregon's regulatory legislation and survey data. Support for controlled growth legislation is found to be a product of both individual‐level characteristics and characteristics of the larger community where one resides. The most influential contextual variables are the county's economy and the class composition of the city. The authors conclude that coastal zone managers must exercise caution when interpreting individual survey data which indicate support for various environmental concerns. Contextual differences must be taken into consideration because sources of support for coastal zone management may vary among individuals, depending on the nature of the communities in which they live.     

Coastal Resources as an Engine of Economic Growth and Reduction of Poverty in West Africa: Policy Considerations

This article synthesizes lessons and outcomes from the second international Coastal Zone Asia-Pacific conference (CZAP) on “Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas,” held in Brisbane in September 2004. The conference theme was chosen as a follow-up from the first CZAP that identified priority actions in response to the increasing recognition of social issues in coastal management, particularly those aiming to improve the state of the coastal areas in the Asia-Pacific region. The second CZAP explored the “quality of life” theme by placing emphasis on rectifying coastal poverty, sustaining livelihoods, and protecting cultural heritage. Mechanisms to address these issues were explored through international agreements, participatory research, capacity building, and education, as well as the continuing need for integrated planning, environmental management, and effective monitoring and evaluation. A post-conference survey showed that the second CZAP resulted in 122 initiatives (82 underway and another 40 planned) to progress the improvement of quality of life in coastal areas. These initiatives ranged from the establishment of a unit that is responsible for river basin and coastal zone management by the Thua Thien Hue provincial government in Vietnam, to a collaborative on-ground livelihoods project between NGOs, government, and financial institutions on coastal zone management facilitated by the Asian Development Bank. However, the authors argue that two key challenges for ICM in the Asia-Pacific region remain. These challenges relate to the effective monitoring and evaluation of ICM initiatives, as well as matching future ICM initiatives to emergent priority areas.     

An alternative perspective on common property resource allocation decisions in the coastal zone

Abstract

This article argues that using the public sector and the private market in the historically delineated and traditional ways offers only the bluntest of tools with which to approach the complex problem of coastal zone management. It therefore seeks to provide a basis for reformulating our understanding of sectoral responsibility with regard to resources management. First, it conceptually analyzes the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two sectors. Second, it examines three examples of coastal resources management—beaches and shorelands, artificial reefs, and coastal wetlands—in analyzing the complexities of the coastal management challenge and the limitations of our current approaches. Finally, we provide an alternative perspective on how these common property resource allocation decisions can be made.     

Coastal management as a bargaining process

Abstract

Major challenges are ahead in managing the coastal zone of western Canada. Until now there has been no legislated focus through a coastal zone management act nor a policy for the management of coastal resources. Instead, policies and institutions have been evolving out of existing legislation responding to opportunities and needs as they have arisen. Management is predominantly a bargaining process the success of which depends on opportunities for informed participation by the affected interests. Considering the relatively small investments in management, bargaining appears to have worked rather well, but there are weaknesses. Fortunately, significant opportunities exist to improve performance at relatively low cost. In particular, there should be a shift from the past emphasis on inventorying, monitoring, and coordination, to the development of functional knowledge and sectoral planning that can be the basis for informed and representative bargaining.     

Editor's note on the comments from Eugene P. Odum,Howard T. Odum,Leonard Shabman,and Sandra Batie

Abstract

It was pointed out in a recent article on shorelines management in France that no overall coastal management legislation in that country exists.¹ Nevertheless, certain existing legislation has been adapted to take account of the peculiarities of the shoreline and coastal zone, and new institutions such as the “Shorelines Trust”; have been created.² As is the case with most countries in the Western world, the processes of urbanization, industrialization, and recreational development place tremendous pressure on shoreline use. Resulting conflicts are sometimes difficult to solve unless adequate institutional frameworks exist. Some form of institutional change is thus inevitable.