Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management

Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change

Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental

Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal
Environment ‑ Management of the
Environmental Change

Source: Max Watson Geography, n.d.

‑1‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Coastal Management Strategies
Physical management of the coast a empts to control natural processes such as erosion and longshore dri .
The strategies can be classified as either:
● Hard engineering involves building ar ficial structures which try to control natural processes. Each
engineering strategy has its advantages and disadvantages.
● So engineering does not involve building ar ficial structures, but takes a more sustainable and
natural approach to managing the coast.

Hard Engineering
1. Use the BBC Bitesize website to complete the table below on hard engineering strategies
h ps://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z2234j6/revision/1

Defini on Advantages Disadvantages Example

Sea Wall

Rock Armour

Gabion

Groyne

‑2‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
So Engineering
2. Use the BBC Bitesize website to complete the table below on so engineering strategies
h ps://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z2234j6/revision/2

Defini on Advantages Disadvantages Example

Beach nourishment

Reprofiling

Dune nourishment

Pop Quiz
1. What is hard engineering management? 5. What are wooden barriers built out to sea
a. Building ar ficial structures to control known as?
erosion a. Sea wall
b. A natural approach to control erosion b. Groynes
c. Using technology to monitor erosion c. Gabions
rates
6. Which management strategy redistributes sand
2. What is so engineering management? on the beach?
a. Building ar ficial structures to control a. Beach nourishment
erosion b. Dune nourishment
b. A natural approach to control erosion c. Reprofiling
c. Using technology to monitor erosion
rates 7. What is a disadvantage of dune nourishment?
a. It is expensive
3. What is an advantage of beach nourishment? b. It only works when wave energy is low
a. It blends in with the natural beach c. It can be damaged by storm waves
b. It is simple to maintain
c. It can be used for fishing 8. Which hard engineering technique reflects wave
energy back to sea?
4. What is an advantage of rock armour? a. Sea wall
a. It looks natural b. Groynes
b. It is easy to maintain c. Gabions
c. It provides a walkway for people

‑3‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Warringah Council ‑ Sand Replenishment and Beach Nourishment
Use informa on from the Warringah Council Presenta on (23 September 2010) "‘Every grain counts’ ‑ Beach
Nourishment at Collaroy‑Narrabeen" to answer the following ques ons.

Warringah LGA 9. Why is this quote important “The problem

3. What is the total size of Warringah Council?
_____________________________________
4. How many residents live in Warringah
Council? ______________
5. What is the length of the coastline managed
by Warringah Council? ______________
6. How many beaches does Warringah Council
manage? ______________
Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach
7. List three facts about the beach
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
8. List the years that there were major storms at
the beach
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
stems from the fact that the ini al subdivision
was too close to the beach with proper es
extending into the ac ve beach zone.”
(Nielsen Lord Associates,1988)?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Management Strategies at Collaroy Beach
10. In what year did the government start
documen ng solu ons? ______________
11. In which document was Beach Nourishment
first men oned at the beach?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
12. Define ‘beach nourishment’
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
13. List the three objec ves of beach nourishment
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________

‑4‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
14. Where is the sand sourced from for beach 19. Where does the sand come from for beach
nourishment? replenishment
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
_____________________________________ _____________________________________

15. What is the required colour and size of sand 20. Between 2001 to 2010 how much sand
for beach nourishment? nourishment has there been? ________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________ 21. Between 1983 to 2006 how much sand
_____________________________________ replenishment has there been? ________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________ 22. Complete the table below on the volume of
sand placed on the beach per year
16. Why are there these requirements for the Volume Cost (m) Total
sand? Cost
_____________________________________ Beach
_____________________________________ Nourishment

_____________________________________ Beach
_____________________________________ Replenishment

_____________________________________ Total

17. Who pays for Beach Nourishment?

23. List the ways the council no fied the residents
_____________________________________
of the sand works
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________

18. What is Beach Replenishment?

_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________

‑5‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Summary of Coastal Management Strategies

Figure 1 ‑ Possible Management Solu ons to Reduce the Impact of Erosion

Source: Bliss, Paine, McCartan, 2010

‑6‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Literature on Coastal Management Strategies at Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach
Building sea walls is a small bandaid on a gaping wound
Source: The Conversa on, October 5, 2018
The Kingscliff seawall, in the Tweed Shire in northern
New South Wales, is an engineering marvel. It is 300
metres long and 6 metres deep, with a projected cost
of between A$3 million and A$5 million. Its depth
enables it to be covered in sand. When beach erosion
occurs, the wall’s large concrete steps should, in theory,
allow the public to carry on using and enjoying the
waterfront.
The main purpose of the wall is to protect a beachfront
caravan park, the main street, and the beach itself,
from coastal erosion.
But while the seawall is innova ve, it symbolises a
major problem with how we approach coastal erosion
and rising sea levels. Councils around Australia must
chose between long‑term adap on to a changing
coastline, or figh ng an expensive rearguard ba le to
protect mainly private property.
My PhD research has found that some elected
councillors are willing to override long‑range climate
change planning so as to protect voters’ private
property.
The problem with just building walls
The construc on of seawalls is usually controversial. A
plethora of research has shown that community
interests diverge on the ques on of whom these walls
are protec ng (and who should have to pay for them).
Fundamentally, this can be categorised as a conflict of
private versus public interests, especially where sea
walls protect private property at the expense of public
amenity and access to beaches.
Seawalls also provide a false sense of security to
property owners who should not be encouraged to buy
in high‑risk loca ons. While it’s true that Kingscliff’s
wall is sensi vely designed, seawalls do not allow the
coast to func on as as a coast should. Coastal
environments are dynamic and movable ecosystems;
they are special places.
Some mes, adap ng to climate change means allowing
places to change. Change can include retrea ng from
some loca ons, well before disaster strikes. Climate
‑7‑
change impacts will render some environments
unrecognisable to the people who live in them now.
The ul mate injus ce would be for marginalised
communi es to fund the protec on of high‑risk private
proper es.
Protec ng private property
The problem for local councils is that the main op ons
for coastal adapta on (defend, manage, or retreat) are
all likely to curtail individual property freedoms in some
way. A key challenge for coastal management and
climate adapta on planning is the ongoing priority
afforded to private property rights.
During my PhD I explored how residents, local
government staff and councillors in Port Stephens and
Lake Macquarie approached climate change adap on.
I found that strategies are developed in nego a on
between local councils, property owners and local
communi es, with reference to state policy. This
dynamic makes it easier for the advancement of private
property rights to become a default priority for some
local governments.
This is not because of council staff – quite the opposite.
Overwhelmingly, council staff are working hard to
implement robust long‑term planning to respond to
climate risk. However, elected councillors have
some mes overridden staff decisions. They usually do
so where decisions nega vely affect local cons tuents’
private property rights or values. One councillor told
me “it’s common sense” to allow people to do as they
liked with their property. To protect themselves against
future liability, some staff minuted legal advice.
Another interes ng result of my research was seeing
how residents rely on law and popular ideas associated
with private property to advance individual property
rights (such as exclusivity and freedom to redevelop).
At the same me many look to the state for help when
their own property is threatened by climate variability.
My data show that residents tend to view coastal
residen al property in two primary ways: as an asset,
and through lived experiences. Most of the residents
involved in my research had lived in their locali es for
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
decades.
Many respondents said they wanted interven on to
protect their own proper es from climate change
impacts. However, they favoured no interven on for
broader property protec ons. This was especially so
where these interven ons were because of “climate
change”, or where these interven ons would reduce
property values or public amenity. Others thought we
shouldn’t be paying to protect someone who has
chosen to live in a high‑risk loca on.
Local governments remain at the forefront of climate
adapta on planning on developed coastlines around
Physical Impacts of Seawalls
Source: Crown, 2016
Seawalls (including revetments) are shore‑parallel
structures and have been used extensively within
Australia and worldwide to “prevent landward retreat
of the shoreline and inunda on or loss of the upland by
flooding and wave ac on” (Kraus and McDougal, 1996).
While these structures, if well designed and built, are
highly successful in achieving their intended purpose of
protec ng land from erosion (Pilkey and Dixon, 1996),
their effect on other parts of the beach system
including the fron ng and adjacent beaches is more
variable with adverse effects o en reported.
The fundamental difference between a seawall and the
beach itself is that the la er is mobile and dynamic
while the former is sta c and designed to be
unyielding. The interac on between these sta c and
dynamic en es has been the subject of much debate
in the engineering, geomorphology and management
communi es (Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Dean, 1986;
Basco, 2004, 2006). While a substan al amount of
research has been undertaken inves ga ng the
structure‑beach interac on and documen ng cases of
beach response (summarised in Kraus, 1988; Kraus and
McDougal, 1996), robust and widely‑accepted methods
for predic ng the magnitude and extents of beach
response are not available. This is due in part to the
great number of variables which affect such a
rela onship. These were summarised by (Weggel,
1988; Griggs 1990) and include structural parameters
(seawall placement, geometry, length and material),
sediment proper es (material, supply and rates of
transport), hydrodynamic regimes ( dal range, mean,
seasonal and extreme wave climate) and antecedent
‑8‑
the world. Authori es can no longer ignore the legal,
poli cal, and cultural consequences of climate change
impacts to our coastlines.
To respond effec vely, elected officials must trust their
staff to act in the best interests of the council. Council
staff can and should create evidence‑based policy,
recognise their legal responsibili es, work with key
stakeholders for effec ve community engagement, and
most importantly, keep good, clear records.
Author
Tayanah O'Donnell, Honorary senior lecturer, Australian
Na onal University
morphology (background rates of long‑term and
cyclical shoreline change).
Kraus and McDougal (1996) a ributed much of the
controversy about the poten al adverse effects of
seawalls on beaches to lack of differen a on between
‘passive erosion’ and ‘ac ve erosion’ (Pilkey and
Wright, 1988; Griggs et al. 1991, 1994). Passive erosion
is defined as being caused by “tendencies which existed
before the wall was in place” and ac ve erosion as
being “due to the interac on of the wall with local
coastal processes”. Of passive erosion, Griggs et al.
(1994) stated that whenever a seawall is built along a
shoreline undergoing long‑term net erosion
(recession), the shoreline will eventually migrate
landward behind the structure resul ng in the gradual
loss of beach in front of the seawall as the water
deepens and the shoreface profile migrates landward.
Dean (1986) presented a list of nine possible and o en
suggested effects of seawalls on adjacent shorelines
and beaches (Figure A1). He then cri cally examined
these postula ons and concluded (Basco, 2004, 2006)
the following (bracketed numbers are poten al effect
as indicated in Figure A1):
Dean found that armouring of a beach does NOT cause:
● Profile steepening (6);
● Delayed beach recovery a er storms (5);
● Increased longshore transport (8);
● Sand transport further offshore (9); and
● Increase in long‑term average erosion rate (3).
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Dean found that armouring of the beach CAN Figure A1 ‑ Commonly Stated Effects of Seawalls on
contribute to: Adjacent Shorelines and Beaches
● Frontal effects (toe scour, depth increases; 1a); Source: Basco, 2004 based on Dean,
● End‑of‑wall effects (flanking; 1b); 1986 as cited in Crown, 2016
● Blockage of li oral dri when projec ng into
surf zone (groyne effect; 4); and
● Reduced beach width fron ng armouring (2).

Pilkey and Wright (1988) refuted the conclusion that

armouring does not cause an increase in the long‑term
average erosion (recession) rate (3) and does not delay
beach recovery a er storms (5) on the grounds that
seawalls intensify surf zone processes including rip
currents, longshore currents and wave reflec on.

In addi on to the poten al adverse effects of seawalls

on the seaward beach profile, the seawall geometry
and make‑up as well as the adjacent nearshore
morphology and hydrodynamic regimes will affect the
serviceability of a seawall in terms of wave run‑up and
wave overtopping, and hence the level of landward
foreshore stability it provides. For a given seawall crest
level, higher wave overtopping rates are expected for
steeper and/or less permeable (solid) structures. High
wave overtopping may cause landward foreshore
erosion or undermining and damage to foreshore
structures if wave overtopping rates are not adequately
accounted for in the seawall and foreshore design. The
EurOtop Manual (2007) describes empirically tested
methods for the es ma on of wave overtopping rates
for seawalls and provides suitable preliminary guidance
on limits of wave overtopping to avoid unacceptable
damage for different development and foreshore types

With reference to the two ar cles, answer the ques on below

24. Summarise the advantages and disadvantages of a seawall in the table below

Advantages Disadvantages

‑9‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Bi er ba le over Collaroy beachfront has raged for years
Source: News Pty Ltd, June 7, 2016

A BITTER fight over the waterfront in Collaroy has been avoided,” she told Channel 10’s The Project on Monday
raging for years. Those who lost have paid a high price. night.

IT’S something that almost every Aussie dreams of: a High de begins to impact on damaged beachfront
mansion with ocean views. homes along Pi water Rd at Collaroy. Picture: Dean
Lewins Source: AAP
But the sight of mul million‑dollar proper es teetering
on the edge of oblivion on Sydney’s northern beaches
this week was a harsh reminder of the reality of buying
near the sea.

The risk of coastal erosion has been talked about for

years and long‑term residents in the Collaroy area,
where several homes have lost their backyards,
balconies and even a swimming pool, have been well
aware of the problem.

Storms have been ea ng away at the coastline since

the 1920s and the Collaroy/Narrabeen beach on
Sydney’s northern beaches, was iden fied as one of the
most at‑risk in Australia.
It hasn’t deterred people from buying in the area, with
the lure of those sweeping views con nuing to capture
the imagina ons of many — but perhaps for not much
longer.
Property owners are now seeing the extensive damage
the ocean can inflict and there’s not much they can do
to save their mul million‑dollar homes from being
engulfed.
Residents have limited (and o en expensive) op ons
when it comes to protec ng their proper es. They also
face fierce opposi on from beachgoers, who don’t
want to see beaches changed to prop up the value of
private proper es.
HOMEOWNERS LEFT AT THE SEA’S MERCY
Northern Beaches Council general manager Mark
Ferguson said measures such as building sea walls were
difficult to implement because of community
opposi on.
Warringah Council tried to extend a 1.1km sea wall
along Collaroy/Narrabeen beach in 2002 but
abandoned the plans when more than 3000 residents
protested against it.
Thousands linked hands along the beachfront to
oppose any upgrade or extension of the ad hoc wall
that protects some homes.
The protest against Collaroy/Narrabeen sea wall in
2002, published in a presenta on from Warringah
Council senior environment officer Daylan Cameron.
Source: Supplied

Some say the conflict between public and private rights

has dumped the burden on homeowners and le them
to pay a high price for something that could have been
prevented.

Homeowner Zaza Silk lost a large chunk of her property

on Sunday evening and said her local council had
“known about this for a long me and should’ve put a
wall up” earlier.

“They’ve had this happen before. This could have been

‑ 10 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
“There is a natural conflict between people with
houses on the beach, and beach users,” coastal
engineer Angus Gordon told news.com.au.
Seawalls can strip beaches of sand and change wave
pa erns, which is not popular with surfers and beach
users.
Giving property owners permission to build sea walls to
protect individual proper es was also problema c.
“Sea walls have a flow on affect to other proper es,”
Mr Ferguson explained. “Water can be pushed onto
neighbouring proper es if they don’t have a sea wall.
That’s why it’s be er to build a wall covering a number
of proper es at the same me.”
One of the Collaroy residents whose home was
damaged during the recent Sydney storms, told AAP of
his frustra on that he had not been allowed to protect
his property.
“We moved in three years ago. We talked to council,
but it’s a bit late now,” Garry Silk said.
“This is the only strip without sea protec on.”
There was extensive damage to Mr Silk’s property. John
Grainger Source: News Corp Australia
Another neighbour Collaroy beachfront resident
Thomas Falvo, 41, was allowed to build his own sea
wall at great expense, but his house sustained minimal
damage.
“That’s part of living on the beach,” Mr Falvo said.
“Obviously government has not really helped on its
part.”
‑ 11 ‑
A coastal zone management plan adopted by council
last year now allows the construc on of sea walls, but
the issue of who pays for it, remains a barrier.
WHO SHOULD PAY?
At the moment individual homeowners can build their
own wall but need to get council approval and pay the
full cost. This can be complicated if there is opposi on
from neighbours.
At the moment council can’t force homeowners to
contribute money towards building a sea wall, which is
especially relevant if the wall will protect a number of
homes.
“You could have councils building walls using public
money to protect private property,” Mr Gordon said.
Mr Gordon said the way forward needed to involve an
appropriate funding model where the beneficiaries of
the construc on, also bore some of the cost.
Councils can’t wash their hands of all responsibility as
the problem can be traced back to land being opened
up too close to the beach.
“The problem stems from the fact that the ini al
subdivision was too close to the beach with proper es
extending into the ac ve beach zone,” noted a coastal
management strategy prepared in 1988 for Warringah
Council (now amalgamated into Northern Beaches
Council).
Last month Planning Minister Rob Stokes announced an
$83 million plan, including $69 million for councils to
address beach erosion, coastal inunda on and cliff
instability.
But Coastal Residents Associa on secretary Pat Aiken
told The Australian the damage to coastal property was
tes mony to the failure of the State Government to act.
“They have spent millions on useless plans that
obviously haven’t worked and haven’t resulted in any
real protec on,” Mr Aiken said.
He said the government was not providing “just terms”
compensa on and council were changing building
boundaries but not compensa ng land owners.
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
OTHER OPTIONS
Other op ons to address the issue, such as buying up
proper es, have also proved imprac cal.
In 2013, Warringah spent almost $3 million buying a
luxury beachfront house it planned to demolish and
use to build a park.
The council had a policy to buy proper es east of
Pi water Rd.
“We have a line that iden fies a poten al wave impact
zone and the proper es that would be under threat
during storms. If we buy there, those homes are no
longer under threat,’’ then‑Warringah general manager
Stephen Blackadder said at the me.
Coastal engineer Angus Gordon told news.com.au that
while everyone thought sandbags were a solu on, he
said they were “next to useless” when it came to
preven ng coastal erosion.
The Collaroy Beach Club was damaged by the storm.
Picture: John Grainger Source: News Corp Australia
“I have watched one and two tonne rocks washed away
and sea walls collapsing,” he said. “Why people think a
15‑20kg sandbag is going to do anything, is just wishful
thinking.”
He said the sandbags were generally useful in
protec ng against flooding situa ons, but not for
preven ng erosion, and while there were bigger
sandbags available, it was hard to get these onto
beaches because access was difficult.
It’s unlikely insurance policies will cover residents
either.
Most housing insurance policies don’t typically cover
‑ 12 ‑
“ac ons of the sea”, which includes coastal erosion,
king des or storm surges, said Insurance Council of
Australia’s Campbell Fuller in a statement.
Refer to the “Bi er ba le over Collaroy beachfront
has raged for years” to answer the following
ques ons
25. Why are proper es near the beach so
expensive?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
26. Who opposed a proposed 1.1km sea wall in
2002? Why?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
27. Why would neighbours oppose a household
building a sea wall?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
28. Why is there a problem in the first place?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
29. What is the effec veness of sandbags?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Exis ng Protec on Works
Source: Warringah Council, 2014
There is a long history of ad‑hoc protec on works,
generally consis ng of rocks, being placed seaward of
proper es during or closely a er coastal storms at
Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach. Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach
can be divided into two sec ons based on the
proximity of public and private development to the
beach and presence of protec on works, namely the
areas north and south of Devi Street.
South of Devi Street there is limited dunal vegeta on,
and extensive lengths of (usually buried) protec on
works. North of Devi Street, development is generally
setback further landward and there is typically a
well‑developed dune with healthy coverage of dunal
vegeta on seaward of development (with no known
protec on works in this area).
The loca on of protec on works was derived based on
Pa erson Bri on & Partners (1993), MHL (1999),
Pa erson Bri on & Partners (1999), a survey
completed by Byrne & Associates on 26 June and 2 July
2007, and field observa ons.
The risk of damage to public and private development
from coastal erosion has been reduced as a result of
past construc on of these protec on works. These
works include:
● a ver cal mass gravity sandstone seawall
south of Collaroy SLSC
● a stepped concrete and ver cal steel sheet
pile seawall at Collaroy SLSC
● a ver cal mass gravity sandstone seawall at
Collaroy Services Beach Club
● sloping rock revetments and some isolated
concrete walls along the southern part of
Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach
It is evident that there is some form of protec ve
structure at Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach:
● along almost the en re length of beach
between Stuart Street and Devi Street
● from Jenkins Street to Ramsay Street
● from about 20m north of Fielding Street
southwards.
For most of the me, the sloping rock revetments (and
lower por ons of the ver cal walls) are buried under
sand, but they can become exposed a er erosive
storms and are generally subsequently buried by sand
as the beach naturally recovers.
‑ 13 ‑
While the exis ng protec on works at the southern
end of Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach remain in place,
erosion and recession would be constrained from
progressing landward of the works. Indeed, the works
have successfully provided property protec on over
the last 40 or so years.
However, the protec on works are variable in standard,
and they may be undersized and/or founded
inadequately. Most of the works are not engineer
designed nor approved structures, and were generally
implemented by various landowners and authori es
and constructed from the 1920’s onwards, and mostly
in the 1960’s and 1970’s during or immediately a er
erosion events.
The protec on works would generally not sa sfy
current design standards and cannot be cer fied by a
qualified coastal engineer as providing protec on for
an appropriate design storm and design life. Also, full
details of the protec on works are generally unknown
or uncertain.
Given this, as well as the poten al for larger waves
a acking the structures under sea level rise (and more
frequent wave a ack as the beach width narrows due
to shoreline recession associated with sea level rise),
future effec veness of the protec on works cannot be
guaranteed.
There are beach profile measurements at
Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach extending back to the
1940’s. It is evident that despite the construc on of
protec on works (since the 1930’s at the southern end
of the beach, with rock revetments known to be
constructed since 1967), the long term average beach
shape/width/volume has been rela vely stable for the
last 70 or so years. This indicates that the presence of
protec on works has had li le impact on the regular
cycle of beach erosion and beach recovery at the
beach. That is, these buried protec on works have not
caused significant long term beach recession, contrary
to the view of some that protec on works always cause
loss of beaches.
The long term average beach stability in the
Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach and Fishermans Beach
embayment is also evidence that the embayment is
essen ally compartmentalised, with negligible net sand
supply or loss.
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Evalua on of the Effec veness of the Responses in Achieving Environmental Sustainability
30. Complete the ALARM template on coastal management strategies at Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach
Name and define – main Describe – characteris cs and Explain – cause and effect
components of topic. features.

Name is It involves ‘How’

It is defined as It includes It aims to
It can be described as

Government Purchase Property
Government purchase property is
when the government buys land where
buildings are at risk of erosion. The
government then removes structure,
thus removing the risk.
It involves the government iden fying
those proper es which have a high
level of risk of being eroded. It includes
those proper es which are built on the
dune system. At the
Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach, the
majority of land at risk is privately
owned. However, there is some council
and crown land which the local
government has acquired.
The government can offer to buy a
property off the owner. For example,
the then local council, Warringah
Council, in 2007 bought three
proper es at risk for $6 million at the
Collaroy‑Narrabeen beach. However,
this was voluntary and many residents
declined. In NSW property can be
compulsory acquired by all levels of
government in accordance with the
Land Acquisi on (Just Terms
Compensa on) Act 1991. Those
proper es which are compulsory
acquired will be compensated through
the Valuer‑General.

Beach Replenishment

Seawall

‑ 14 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change

Discuss – points for and against Analyse – rela onships between Evaluate – make a judgment, support
components. an argument

‘What’ This leads to ‘Why’

The advantages are This results in Use linking words such are therefore,
The disadvantages are Therefore, thus as a result, thus

Government Purchase Property
(+) Allows easier management of the
dune area
(+) Allows naturals beach processes to
con nue
(+) Increase public access to the beach
(‑) Loss of revenue to the local council
(rates)
(‑) Possible social problem with
residents who must move
(‑) Exposes the back dune area which
will need protec on
(‑) Cost would be extremely high
(‑) Does not solve sand loss
This leads to a the government owning
the land, where they can remove
buildings at risk and thus the land can
return to the natural dune system
which are more stable. This approach
could have withstood the extreme
weather events, such as the June 2016
storm, which eroded 50 metres of the
Collaroy‑Narrabeen beach, and badly
damaged a number of waterfront
proper es. Though, purchasing
property at risk is extremely expensive.
These proper es are worth on average
$3 million each, and more than 50
would need to be purchased. This is a
significant cost for the council.
Government purchase property is a
sustainable coastal management
strategy for the Collaroy‑Narrabeen
beach. By removing proper es which
have altered the natural environment,
the coast can be return to their natural
process. However, as waterfront
proper es are inherently expensive
due to their prime loca on, local and
state governments cannot jus fy the
high cost (in excess of $150 million for
Northern Beaches Council).
Furthermore it will diminish lucra ve
council rates from this proper es
(which are based on property
valua ons).

Beach Replenishment

Seawall

Criteria for evalua on – Examples of value judgment type words that to demonstrate impact / level of effec veness etc include;
Posi ve ‑ benefits, increases, sustains, enhances, improves, promotes, prevents, progresses, gains;
Nega ve – decreases, harms, reduces, limits, diminishes

‑ 15 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Use the ALARM scaffold to answer the following extended response ques on
31. Evaluate the effec veness of coastal management strategies in achieving environmental sustainability for
a specific loca on in Australia (20 Marks)

Your answer will be assessed on how well you:

● demonstrate knowledge and understanding relevant to the ques on
● apply relevant geographic informa on, terms, concepts, rela onships and theory
● present a sustained, logical and cohesive response

Criteria Mark

● Provides a sustained, logical and cohesive response 17 ‑ 20

● Integrates relevant geographic terms, concepts, rela onships and theories
● Demonstrates a clear and comprehensive understanding of coastal management
strategies that are designed to achieve environmental sustainability
● Develops arguments to judge the success of coastal management strategies designed to
achieve environmental sustainability

● Provides a logical and cohesive response 13 ‑ 16

● Applies relevant geographic terms, concepts, rela onships and theories
● Demonstrates a sound understanding of coastal management strategies that are
designed to achieve environmental sustainability
● States arguments regarding the success of coastal management strategies designed to
achieve environmental sustainability

● Provides a coherent response 9 ‑ 12

● Uses relevant geographic terms, concepts, rela onships and theories
● Demonstrates an understanding of coastal management strategies that are designed to
achieve environmental sustainability

● Provides a generalised response 5‑8

● Uses some geographic terms and concepts
● Sketches in general terms some aspects of coastal management strategies that are
designed to achieve environmental sustainability

● Provides a limited response 1‑4

● Uses some geographic terms and concepts
● Iden fies some aspects of coastal management strategies that are designed to achieve
environmental sustainability

‑ 16 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change

Evaluate the effec veness of coastal management strategies in

achieving environmental sustainability for a specific loca on in Australia (20 Marks)

Paragraph 1 ‑ Introduc on
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph 2 ‑ Government Purchase Property

Government purchase property is a sustainable coastal management strategy for the Collaroy‑Narrabeen
beach. Government purchase property is when the government buys land where buildings are at risk of
erosion. The government then removes structure, thus removing the risk. It involves the government
iden fying those proper es which have a high level of risk of being eroded. It includes those proper es
which are built on the dune system. At the Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach, the majority of land at risk is privately
owned. However, there is some council and crown land which the local government has acquired. The
government can offer to buy a property off the owner. For example, the then local council, Warringah
Council, in 2007 bought three proper es at risk for $6 million at the Collaroy‑Narrabeen beach. However, this
was voluntary and many residents declined. In NSW property can be compulsory acquired by all levels of
government in accordance with the Land Acquisi on (Just Terms Compensa on) Act 1991. Those proper es
which are compulsory acquired will be compensated through the Valuer‑General. The advantages are allows
easier management of the dune area; allows naturals beach processes to con nue; increase public access to
the beach. While the disadvantages are: loss of revenue to the local council (rates); possible social problem
with residents who must move; exposes the back dune area which will need protec on; cost would be
extremely high; and does not solve sand loss. This leads to a the government owning the land, where they
can remove buildings at risk and thus the land can return to the natural dune system which are more stable.
This approach could have withstood the extreme weather events, such as the June 2016 storm, which eroded
50 metres of the Collaroy‑Narrabeen beach, and badly damaged a number of waterfront proper es. Though,
purchasing property at risk is extremely expensive. These proper es are worth on average $3 million each,
and more than 50 would need to be purchased. This is a significant cost for the council. By removing
proper es which have altered the natural environment, the coast can be return to their natural process.
However, as waterfront proper es are inherently expensive due to their prime loca on, local and state
governments cannot jus fy the high cost (in excess of $150 million for Northern Beaches Council).
Furthermore it will diminish lucra ve council rates from this proper es (which are based on property
valua ons).

‑ 17 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Paragraph 3 ‑ Beach Replenishment
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph 4 ‑ Seawall
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph 5 ‑ Conclusion
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

‑ 18 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Factors influencing the management responses
32. Research how the following factors influence the management response at Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach.
You’ll need to define each factor too. Enjoy!

Defini on of the factor How does this factor influence the management
response at Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach?

Worldviews

Compe ng
Demands

Technology

Climate
Change

Figure 2 ‑ Images of Narrabeen/Collaroy (Pi water LGA) in 2009

and with simulated inunda on from a sea‑level rise of 1.1 metres and a 1‑in‑100
Source: Department of Climate Change, 2009

‑ 19 ‑
 Year 10 Geography ‑ Environmental Change and Management
Inves ga ve Study ‑ Coastal Environment ‑ Management of the Environmental Change
Proposal of how individuals could contribute to achieving environmental sustainability for the
environment
33. Brainstorm four different individuals who are involved with the coastal environment at the
Collaroy‑Narrabeen beach. For each individual, describe how they can contribute to achieving
environmental sustainability at Collaroy‑Narrabeen beach

Type of How can the individual contribute to achieving environmental sustainability for the
Individual coastal environment at Collaroy‑Narrabeen Beach

Tourist

The varied role of community groups

Source: Adelaide University, 2010

Today, all around Australia, community groups play a
great variety of roles in managing the coast: a surf
lifesaving club concerned with beach safety; a
conserva on group involved with ecosystem
protec on; a dive club monitoring reef health; a coastal
park friends group engaged in weed removal; a service
group managing a foreshore reserve; or a professional
fishers associa on managing a regional fishing zone.
In the past, state agencies, and some mes local
government agencies, have tended to keep community
groups at arm’s length and engage in closed planning
and management processes, which tended not to
involve the community. During the last 20 years there
has been an increase in community willingness to
par cipate and a greater readiness by governments to
encourage such involvement. This has o en been at
the implementa on stage, involving minor works,
rather than in direc on‑se ng. Many governments are
extremely cau ous about public involvement where it
is perceived that sensi ve economic or poli cal issues
are involved, or there are con ngent links outside a
local area. As a result, Hale L. (1996) points out that
community management approaches are more likely to
be successful at the local scale, where:
● they are confined to a small geographic area
● they deal with issues that do not have strong
con ngent links to systems outside the control
of the community
● ownership or management responsibility is
located close by
● mo va on is high, such as management
involving the economic interests of the
community
● communi es have access to, or can acquire,
appropriate exper se.

‑ 20 ‑