Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
outer Blackwater Estuary met with robust oppo-
sition from the local community and the planning
authority due to its perceived 'significant effect on
the character and appearance of the countryside'
in an area of coastal farmland (Maldon District
Council 2003). Other concerns were also ex-
pressed relating to flood risk, the adverse effect
on the local economy, the damage to local wildlife
interest (on arable fields), the loss of access to a
small shingle beach and the effects on features of
archaeological interest. Ultimately, this opposi-
tion led to this site being abandoned in favour of
a 115-ha realignment on the north bank of
nearby Wallasea Island (ComCoast 2007, Dixon
et al. 2008).
Problems were also encountered with the
600-ha Kruibeke flood alleviation scheme, on the
banks of the Scheldt Estuary near Antwerp in
Belgium (still under development in 2009). While
not a managed realignment site, it represents a
large-scale (600 ha) area that has some RTE areas
with new counterwalls that will be designed such
that the outer walls can safely overtop on surge
tides to alleviate flood pressures elsewhere. Al-
though the scheme had first been mooted, and
known publicly, in the late 1970s there was an
absence of consultation with the public or the
media, and the information vacuum fuelled polit-
ical opposition led by the local mayor (ComCoast
2007). This was addressed through the instigation
of a detailed communication exercise led by a
dedicated communications teamand included the
provision of a drop-in visitor centre on the con-
struction site. By contrast, and as just one example
of how lessons have been learned from the past,
the implementation of a 370-ha flood alleviation
and managed realignment scheme at Alkborough
on the Humber Estuary was helped greatly by
having public consultations/involvement includ-
ing the creation of a liaison group with local
representatives that met regularly throughout
the duration of the project.
In addition to the lessons that have been
learned about how to engage with the communi-
ty, our understanding about the socioeconomic
benefits that accrue from newly created habitats
and how to value them in monetary terms has
Royal Commission on Flood Defences, for in-
stance, deemed that state aid to restore land that
had been subject to unmanaged flooding was too
expensive in most areas. The aftermath of World
War I saw priorities change when the Bledisloe
Commission decided that the UK needed to be
self-sufficient in food in the event of further con-
flict, and provided state funding for draining wet-
lands and keeping saltwater out. This policy was
reversed after the 1953 floods when the Waverley
Commission recommended that public funding
should not be used for agricultural land on large
parts of the East Anglian coast because the eco-
nomic returns were too small. This policy was
never put into practice though and large sums of
money continued to be spent for the benefit of
small numbers of coastal farmers. Today, popula-
tion increases (nationally and globally) mean that
our attention is again focused on whether we are
going to be able to provide sufficient food into
the future. But, that cannot mean that we must
protect all extant coastal farmland, especially
when the food produced on relict saline flood-
plains protected by sea defences is among themost
expensive in the world, and with certain excep-
tions (e.g. Wash and Somerset Levels) is on a
relatively small area of land. Instead it must mean
that there is a prioritization of funding and land
use in the context of a national strategy.
To informthe contemporary debate on land loss
andmanaged realignment there are values that can
be ascribed to both the losses and the gains asso-
ciatedwith the changing habitats, but they need to
be weighed alongside a number of intangible ben-
efits (existence value, recreational value, etc.). So,
for example, one may need to consider the value of
some high-grade farmland, both now and in the
future, against the value of some intertidal mud
and the services that it provides (areas of intertidal
mud within estuaries are some of the most bio-
logically productive areas on the planet and are of
great importance to the marine food chain). Such
trade-offs can be complex and have often led to
difficulties when coastal managers have sought to
promote and consult upon managed realignment
schemes. For instance, in 2003, a proposal to carry
out managed realignment at Weymarks in the
