Planning Considerations - Beach Renourishment - page 114

and maintaining solid structures if the renourished beach survives for more
than 7 years, while, on the Georgian Black Sea coast beach renourishment for
51.9 million roubles (2014 US$1 million) was about half the cost of the previously
unsuccessful coast protection works using solid structures. On the east coast of the
United States the cost of maintaining a beach front lot through renourishment is
around US$10,000 (2014 US$13,000) per year (Pilkey and Hume 2001 ), whereas
sea wall construction costs about US$3,000 (2014 US$4,000) per metre, with
maintenance costs of 4-10 % per annum, depending on exposure to wave action
(Neumann and Livesay 2001 ). In reality, such comparisons are far more complex,
and can only be effective when undertaken on a site- by-site basis.
The chief benefits of beach renourishment are the provision of improved scenic
and recreational values and additional coastline protection against the effects of
storms. There is a reduction in cliff erosion and storm damage on coastal struc-
tures such as esplanades, roads and buildings. Unlike sea walls and groynes, a ren-
ourished beach protects one sector without inducing erosion downdrift, and some
of the sediment deposited may be carried by longshore drift to downdrift sectors,
augmenting their beaches and thus improving protection for adjacent developed
coasts and their communities. Sediment moving alongshore is not really 'lost' if
it benefits adjacent beaches and coasts. Examples of this have been noted on the
coast east of Bournemouth, and in Singapore, while on the south coast of Port
Phillip Bay the erosion of the beach at Portsea (Sect. 2.7 , p. 18, 19) has been
accompanied by accretion on beaches downdrift towards Sorrento: by the end of
2013 Shelly Beach and Point King Beach at Sorrento were both exceptionally
wide because sand lost from Portsea beach had drifted eastward along the shore
(Fig. 2.10 ) . Losses from gravel beaches emplaced on the shores of Lake Michigan
are mainly alongshore rather than offshore, with the benefit that they may widen
beaches that protect sectors downdrift along the coast (Roellig 1989 ).
Beach renourishment improves the recreational resource by increasing beach
area. The widened beach is attractive to visitors because it is a more natural and
pleasant environment for recreation than a coastline dominated by sea walls, tetra-
pods, breakwaters and groynes. A successful beach renourishment project provides
a seaside resort with a more attractive tourist lure, and results in more visitors and
increased income, compared with resorts that are losing their beaches or have
become excessively adorned with artificial structures (Dean 1987 ).
Beach renourishment is easily justified in the Netherlands, where one-third of
the land is below mean sea level and potentially massive socio-economic conse-
quences are attributable to a rising sea level. It is a densely populated country (494
people/km 2 ) with a 350 km long coastline, and nine million residents (out of a
total of 16.7 million) living in coastal areas, many of which are below mean sea
level. Roughly 65 % of the country's gross national product (about € 400 billion) is
generated within this coastal region (Stive et al. 2013 ).
There is also the question of who should pay for beach renourishment projects.
In most countries the cost is met by national or local government agencies on
the grounds that the restored beaches are public facilities, but where the beaches
are private, or public access is impeded for one reason or another, this becomes