TLE D U G

O E

R Tourism Geographies 3(1), 2001, 87–104 · · T a p y u lo r o r & G Fr a nc is 1 2 Recreational development and 3 4 shoreline modiŽ cation along the 5 6 north coast of Yucatán, Mexico 7 8 9 10 11 Klaus J. Meyer-Arendt 12 13 Department of Environmental Studies, University of West Florida, USA 14 15 16 Abstract 17 The north coast of Yucatán has been a destination for domestic tourists for 18 over a century. Since 1945, recreational development has created a 20-km summer- 19 home strip centred upon the port of Progreso. In response to port and harbour 20 improvements and corollary down-drift erosion, second-home owners have 21 armoured the shoreline with groynes and caused a severe physical and aesthetic 22 degradation of the coastal landscape. Since 1990, even the up-drift coast has become armoured and aesthetically degraded. Here, the impetus to modify the 23 shoreline has been in response to poor construction practices and an inability 24 by vacation-home owners to adjust to the natural processes of accretion and 25 erosion that characterize this physical environment. As groyne construction 26 diffuses eastward into pristine beach environments, efforts to expand international 27 tourism may be hindered by environmental degradation caused by shoreline modiŽcation. 28 29 30 Keywords: coastal tourism, recreational development, shoreline modiŽcation, 31 groynes, Yucatán (Mexico) 32 33 34 Introduction 35 36 The north coast of Yucatán has been a destination for domestic tourists 37 from Mérida, the state capital, for over a century. As a 20-km reach of 38 coast slowly evolved into a conurbation of beachfront summer homes 39 during the 1950s and 1960s, Yucatecan second-home owners faced prob- 40 lems of shoreline erosion, especially west (down-drift) of Progreso, where 41 1142 43 Tourism Geographies ISSN 1461–6688 print/ISSN 1470-1340 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd 44 http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/14616680010008720 88 Meyer-Arendt 111 extensive port and harbour construction had taken place. The response 2 by individual property owners (or lessees) was to construct groynes (shore- 3 normal, rock-and-timber structures built from the beach into the shallow 4 nearshore environment) and these, in turn, accelerated the problem of 5 down-drift erosion and stimulated even more groyne construction. Between 6 the 1960s and late 1980s, the shoreline west of Progreso became very 7 degraded as a result of a combination of severe human-induced erosion 8 and futile efforts by vacation-home owners to retard the erosion. During 9 the 1990s, however, the locus of groyne construction shifted to the east 10 (up-drift) of Progreso, where the shoreline historically had been natural 11 and relatively pristine. Although some of this groyne construction was in 12 response to the passage of Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, especially in the 13 village of Chicxulub Puerto, most is attributed to misguided efforts by 14 second-home owners to stabilize a shoreline that naturally uctuates in 15 position. 16 Second-home domestic tourism is a unique form of tourism that occurs 17 in many coastal reaches of the world in addition to lake and mountain 18 districts (Jaakson 1986). While this form of tourism is characterized by 19 a repeat visitation and leisure-time routine, it is none the less as impor- 20 tant as hotel development in the establishment and growth of resort areas. 21 Since recreation is the overriding purpose of seasonal tourists in Yucatán 22 (and elsewhere), the term ‘recreational development’ is used in reference 23 to growth of a second-home landscape here. The term ‘development’ is 24 used primarily in the sense of ‘spatial reorganization’, rather than in the 25 sense of economic growth, modernization, distributive justice or socio- 26 economic transformation (Pearce 1989). 27 Shoreline change and structural modiŽcation have long been research 28 themes of geographers (Johnson 1919; Davis 1956). In the 1980s, Walker 29 (1981, 1984) investigated global impacts of structural modiŽcation. A 30 comprehensive volume on artiŽcial structures was published in 1988 31 (Walker 1988), which included a short section on Mexico (Gutierrez- 32 Estrada et al. 1988). The speciŽc role of recreation and tourism in leading 33 to shoreline modiŽcation was addressed in two edited books in the early 34 1990s (Fabbri 1990; Wong 1993). The impact of artiŽcial structures upon 35 adjacent natural beaches has been documented at various venues, including 36 Hawaii (Fletcher et al. 1997). 37 This article is presented as a case study of domestic tourism develop- 38 ment and physical impacts along the north coast of Yucatán. By focusing 39 upon a study area east of Progreso, it will be demonstrated that recre- 40 ational development stimulated by seasonal domestic tourism has become 41 as much of a contributing factor in shoreline modiŽcation today as port 42 and harbour development was in the past. There are many other issues 43 related to the growth of tourism in this area that deserve much attention, 1144 e.g. land ownership and illegal land conveyance issues, socio-political 88 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 89 1 processes of beachfront development and the internationalization of 2 tourism. The focus here, however, is upon the beaches that attracted 3 domestic tourists and are now in danger of being destroyed by them. 4 5 6 The physical setting 7 8 The north Yucatán coast consists of a beach-ridge plain accreted onto the 9 limestone platform of the Yucatán peninsula where it dips gently north- 10 ward into the Gulf of Mexico (Meyer-Arendt 1993). This beach-ridge 11 ‘barrier’ is separated from the rocky ‘mainland’ by a lagoon/mangrove 12 swamp depression generally referred to as la ciénaga (lagoon/wetlands), 13 but known as the Estero Yucalpetén (estero meaning estuary) in the vicinity 14 of Progreso (Figure 1). The beach-ridge plain varies in width and, in the 15 vicinity of Progreso, it is almost 1 km wide. Active primary dunes are 16 found in unmodiŽed zones of the beachfront and dune heights of up to 17 3 m are common west of Chuburná Puerto. At the beach, depth to lime- 18 stone bedrock averages 3 or 4 m (Sánchez & Vera 1963). The shoreline 19 is generally long and straight, except where interrupted by small Pleistocene 20 limestone outliers, some of which function as natural breakwaters and 21 locally reduce wave energy (Sapper 1945; Edwards 1954). 22 The beach-ridge complex of north Yucatán is thought to have origi- 23 nated in a Holocene sequence of accretion and erosion similar to that 24 of other reaches of the Mexican Gulf Coast (Psuty 1967; Stapor 1971; 25 Tanner & Stapor 1971; Tanner 1975). The multiple-ridge plain reects a 26 regressive phase of sand abundance and accretion, although transgression 27 has prevailed in the historic period. The beach sands contain no quartz 28 sand but high proportions of shell fragments (Isphording 1975), which 29 indicates a nearshore source of the beach material. There is east–west 30 longshore sediment transport, attributed to the longshore currents coming 31 into the Gulf through the Yucatán Channel. Net westward longshore sedi- 32 ment transport rates of 30,000 m3 per year have been estimated for east 33 of Progreso (Sánchez & Vera 1963; SCT 1986). 34 Wave energy is relatively low along the north coast of Yucatán, except 35 during storm events. Because of its north-facing orientation, the north 36 coast is more vulnerable to onslaught by wintertime nortes (northers) than 37 by hurricanes. On average, 20–25 nortes reach Yucatán during the winter 38 season (Vivó 1964; Mosiño & García 1974), the strongest of these causing 39 erosion and lagoonal ooding. In Tabasco, Psuty (1967) noted a pattern 40 of seasonal shoreline change, whereby wider summer beaches give way 41 to narrower, norte-dominated winter beaches. Hurricanes pass over or 42 near the Yucatán peninsula on an east–west track, usually once a year 43 (Wilson 1980), but only rarely are they of the magnitude of Hurricane 1114 Gilbert of 1988 (Meyer-Arendt 1991a,b). Occasionally, a hurricane stalls 89 90 Meyer-Arendt 111 for a prolonged period in the central or northern Gulf of Mexico and 2 initiates a reversal of currents along the north Yucatán coast. This reversal, 3 driven by the rare west wind called chikin-ik by the Maya, may cause 4 erosion along localized reaches that normally lie in sheltered lee locations 5 (Meyer-Arendt 1993). 6 The north coast of Yucatán has been in a transgressive phase for the 7 last century or so, although coastal reaches close to the rock outliers 8 appear to be quite stable. ClifŽng of dunes is evident in many areas, 9 notably east of Progreso and near Chuburná Puerto, and beachfront 10 coconut palms are periodically uprooted. Shoreline retreat of 200 m 11 over a period of 110 years has been reported (Gutierrez 1983), but 12 this rate appears extraordinarily high and may be based upon inaccurate 13 historical charts. 14 Analysis of aerial photography revealed variability in shoreline changes 15 along the north coast of Yucatán since the 1940s. Overall, shoreline retreat 16 rates were found to be relatively low, especially compared to rates along 17 the northern Gulf of Mexico, but both short-term and geographical vari- 18 ability were apparent. Although the scale of the photography (1:25,000 19 was the best) precluded accurate measurement in areas of little change, 20 high rates of change were measured west of Progreso. Immediately west 21 of Progreso wharf, rates of 0.3 to 0.6 m a-1 were measured for the 1948–78 22 period, and down-drift of the jettied Yucalpetén harbour entrance rates 23 approached 1.0 m a-1 (Meyer-Arendt 1987b). By contrast, the coastal 24 zone east of Chicxulub Puerto remained relatively stable until the 1990s. 25 However, while the shoreline position remained relatively unchanged 26 when comparing 1948 and 1991 aerial photographs, uctuations were 27 noted in intermediate sets of photos. It appeared that phases of accretion 28 alternated with phases of erosion. 29 30 31 Coastal tourism in Yucatán 32 33 The origins of domestic tourism and recreational development along the 34 north coast of Yucatán date to the late nineteenth century (Paré & Fraga 35 1994). In 1856, construction began at a new port, named Progreso de 36 Castro, 32 km due north of Mérida and more easily accessible than the 37 older port of Sisal (Moseley & Terry 1980). By 1861, a crude road from 38 Mérida to the new settlement had been constructed (Ferrer 1945). The 39 Žrst wharf was completed in 1870 and a train service between Mérida 40 and Progreso began in 1881. Although the primary function of the rail- 41 road was to facilitate the export of henequén (sisal, a Žbre used for making 42 binder twine), Mérida residents quickly discovered the beaches for day- 43 use recreation, and wealthy families began to build summer residences 1144 (casas veraniegas). 90 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 91 1 Tourism development was accompanied by intensive and extensive 2 landscape change in the Žrst half of the twentieth century. By 1912, 3 Progreso had three hotels and an established reputation as a popular 4 vacation destination for Mérida residents (Frías & Frías 1984; Meyer- 5 Arendt 1987a). In 1928, the Mérida–Progreso highway was paved and 6 a malecón, or beachfront promenade, was constructed along the shore- 7 front of Progreso east (up-drift) of the wharf. Restaurants and dance 8 clubs were constructed along the landscaped beachfront drive amidst 9 opulent summer homes and the locus of vacation housing soon spread 10 eastward toward Chicxulub Puerto. Roads were graded toward Chicxulub 11 Puerto in the east and Chelem in the west, while sand roads were extended 12 eastward to Dzilam de Bravo (70 km east of Chicxulub Puerto) and 13 westward to Chuburná Puerto. By 1945, Chicxulub Puerto was an estab- 14 lished playa de veraneo (summer beach) and many of the outlying Žshing 15 and salt-producing Mayan settlements were considered lugares de recreo 16 (recreation spots) (Ferrer 1945). 17 A boom in beachfront development began after the end of World War II. 18 A 2 km long concrete wharf at Progreso was completed in 1947 and shore- 19 front urbanization extended east and west from Progreso (Meyer-Arendt 20 1990). The beaches closest to Progreso remained most popular for develop- 21 ment because of the availability of utilities and proximity to Mérida. As 22 Progreso’s beachfront Žlled in with summer homes during the late 1940s, 23 Chicxulub Puerto became the next favoured site of vacation-home con- 24 struction. A secondary direction of expansion was toward Chelem, where 25 property values were lower because of shoreline erosion attributed to the 26 port. Recreational development continued throughout the remainder of 27 the twentieth century and a contiguous urban strip – from Chuburná Puerto 28 to Chicxulub Puerto – has emerged (see Figure 1). Of the strip of urbaniza- 29 tion, the largest part is today the vacation home zone, delineated on the 2000 30 overlay. Much of the area’s permanent population lives along the edge of the 31 marshy wetlands, where recent land reclamation (land-Žlling) efforts have 32 been concentrated to improve the quantity and quality of housing and san- 33 itary conditions. 34 During the 1990s, the greatest real estate boom was in the eastern 35 reaches of the north coast urban area where empty stretches of beach 36 scrub and former cocales (coconut plantations) have been converted to 37 fraccionamientos (subdivisions) or zones of élite beachfront housing. The 38 modern toponyms (shown on bottom panel of Figure 1) reect a combi- 39 nation of historical (names of cocales such as JoseŽna, Diana Milán and 40 Uaymitún) and modern (developers’ designations such as Costa Dorada 41 and Costa Turquesa). 42 In addition to single-family dwellings, a condominium ‘boom’ hit 43 the north coast of Yucatán beginning in the late 1980s (Meyer-Arendt 1114 1999). In a 1994 survey by the author, 43 condominiums or suites/villas 91 92 Meyer-Arendt i I I ~I

111 .

2 ,,»'-'"' , CdC~ . 1948 1971 3 /' ···.D."'! ... -

4 -.- ... - .. 5 -. "- u,ymi!Oo , ·-.-. .

6 .. ,- ' - ·· 7 1 u,gw'"

8 .p.·fa·i·, d.g•e

9 - .. - ·=q:~? 10 ~ -----~- 11 "

12 '" · - 13 0 "'- - ~ \\ ,;; 14 ,~ c\)vt 15 --1,- '- homes .... Q\~.-n 16 .. . land-filling . ''"_""" population . 17 C,l}~c"";<.v.\v. of zone roa 18 vacation of zone urbanization 19 ,_,---, ,p1,~1, --- 0 [Zl zone permanent industrial

20 uplands ~ 0 [J

21 ,;·--- - 22 - -- . - l ~ 23 ru

24 wharf 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37 Mexico

38 of

39 Gulf 40

41 Land-use changes on the north coast of Yucatán, 1948–2000.

42 n~u~-~1-c,-,dl:- 43 l>

1144 rA,dv_\., Figure 1

92 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 93 1 (multi-unit structures with individual ownership of units) with a total of 2 551 units were counted between Chuburná Puerto and just east of 3 Uaymitún. Of that number, only seven (77 units) were west of Progreso. 4 In other words, 84 per cent of all condominiums were east of the Progreso 5 wharf, with the zone of greatest multi-unit construction lying between 6 Chicxulub Puerto and Uaymitún. 7 8 9 Structural modiŽcation of the shoreline 10 11 Human modiŽcation of the north Yucatán coast via emplacement or 12 construction of shoreline structures dates back to the initial development 13 of Progreso as a port city, while the role of tourists as geomorphic agents 14 is newer but now dominant in importance (Meyer-Arendt 1993). Ever 15 since the Žrst wharves were constructed in Progreso in the late nineteenth 16 century, the western (down-drift) zone has experienced the highest local 17 rates of erosion. Although Dutch engineers designed a new (in 1947) 18 2 km long wharf to allow throughow of water and sediments (Campos 19 1990), high rates of shoreline erosion were soon noted. Perhaps as a result, 20 the earliest zone of beachfront development was to the east of the wharf, 21 along what became the Progreso malecón and eastward to Chicxulub 22 Puerto. Not surprisingly, the Žrst groynes were built here to protect the 23 touristic infrastructure. 24 Groyne building became popular in Yucatán in the 1960s, perhaps 25 because groynes were perceived as an effective means of trapping long- 26 shore sands and offsetting erosion elsewhere in the world at the time, 27 including the United States. The Žrst rock-and-timber groynes (espigones), 28 locally known as ‘spurs’ (espolones), were constructed by beachfront home 29 owners at Chelem (and possibly Chicxulub Puerto) as early as the late 30 1950s (Sánchez & Vera 1963). Because of poor design, however, the 31 espolones were not very effective and accelerated down-drift erosion. In 32 1964, government engineers designed and installed a groyne Želd along 33 the Progreso malecón to maintain a wide beach for day-use recreation- 34 ists (Meyer-Arendt 1987a). Perhaps because the groynes were designed by 35 engineers, these espolones proved to be relatively successful in trapping 36 sand. As a result, groyne building became ever more popular among 37 Yucatecan summer-home owners (Figure 2). 38 In 1968, a safe harbour (puerto de abrigo) for the Progreso Žshing eet 39 was created and the port of Yucalpetén established (see Figure 1), and a 40 phase of down-drift erosion and groyne construction was initiated. A navi- 41 gation channel was excavated through the beach-ridge plain (which forced 42 a relocation of the highway to Chelem) and jetties (escolleras) built to 43 prevent sediments from Žlling in the channel. The east jetty extends over 1114 500 m seaward from the position of the natural coastline, where much 93 94 Meyer-Arendt 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 2 Groyne construction along the north coast of Yucatán, 1994. 21 22 23 sand has accreted over the past three decades and a luxury hotel and 24 marina were built in the late 1980s. Down-drift of the west jetty, the 25 shoreline began to retreat rapidly – as much as 30 m in the Žrst few years 26 – and widespread construction of espolones began. 27 Unlike the groyne Želd at the Progreso malecón, the groynes extending 28 westward from Yucalpetén were neither authorized nor professionally engi- 29 neered. Although construction permits were legally required, beachfront 30 property owners perceived groynes as means of saving their property 31 and individually built espolones on a piecemeal basis without obtaining 32 permits. The village council (commisario ejidale) of Chelem did not object 33 to the shoreline armouring, nor did any regional, state or federal author- 34 ities (perhaps because the stimulus was the port and harbour 35 improvements). 36 Continued groyne construction gradually shifted the locus of erosion 37 westward and, in response, the corollary leading edge of espolón con- 38 struction. During a 1984 aerial survey, 178 espolones were documented 39 along an 8.8 km stretch from Yucalpetén to Chuburná Puerto, an average 40 of one every 50 m (Meyer-Arendt 1987b). Over 75 per cent of the 41 vacation home properties west of the Yucalpetén jetties encroached within 42 the 20 m wide beach easement known as the Zona Federal Marítimo 43 Terrestre, or Federal Coastal Zone (Merino 1987). By the mid-1980s, the 1144 cause-and-effect relationship between groynes and erosion was recognized 94 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 95 1 and Chuburná Puerto ofŽcials removed several espolones and began to 2 enforce the existing ban on unauthorized groynes in their jurisdiction 3 (Meyer-Arendt 1987a). 4 Whereas the groynes west of Yucalpetén were built in response to 5 erosion created by port construction and, therefore, seasonal tourists 6 were perhaps less to blame for beachfront degradation, east of Progreso 7 the causal relationships were not so clear. In Chicxulub Puerto, a short 8 wharf (now derelict and partially removed) may have contributed to 9 down-drift shoreline erosion and corollary groyne construction in the 10 late 1950s and early 1960s. East of Chicxulub Puerto, however, there 11 was never any port or industrial construction, neither were there any 12 groynes until the area began to Žll in with vacation homes and condo- 13 miniums. The Žrst groyne was built in the early 1990s and, by late 1999, 14 a 6 km long stretch east of Chicxulub Puerto had become armoured 15 with approximately 100 espolones, causing the coastal landscape to 16 resemble the erosional, debris-strewn beachfront of Chelem. Since the 17 primary stimulus for coastal modiŽcation appeared to be seasonal domestic 18 tourism, this zone east of Chicxulub Puerto became a focus of research 19 in the 1990s. 20 21 22 East of Chicxulub Puerto: a case study 23 24 Historically, the shorefront east of Chicxulub Puerto has been untouched 25 by port development or other human modiŽcation. The area’s beautiful 26 white beaches and vegetated sand dunes, coupled with its proximity to 27 Progreso (and Mérida), made it attractive to domestic tourists beginning 28 in the 1950s. Beachfront home construction commenced in the 1960s and, 29 throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the area remained popular for real estate 30 development by the Mérida élite and middle class professionals (Figure 31 3). By the late 1990s, however, the once pristine shorefront had been 32 converted into a Chelem-style landscape of groynes and seawalls, and the 33 ‘touristic frontier’ of vacation-home development had shifted eastward 34 toward Uaymitún. The 5 km long coastal reach immediately east of 35 Chicxulub Puerto provides an excellent case study to better understand 36 the processes of touristic development and corollary shoreline modiŽca- 37 tion within the entire recreationally developed north coast of Yucatán. 38 As recently as the late 1940s, the area east of Chicxulub Puerto was 39 relatively devoid of human habitation. Development was just beginning 40 to extend the village eastward along the shorefront but, except for a few 41 coconut plantations, the scrubby beach-ridge plain was empty. In the 42 nearshore at the Cocal San Miguel lay a cluster of Pleistocene-age lime- 43 stone rocks just below the water’s surface (shown only on the top two 1114 panels of Figure 3). These rocks explain the sandy headland along an 95 96 Meyer-Arendt 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 3 Land-use and shoreline changes, Chicxulub Puerto and points east, 1948–99. 20 21 22 23 otherwise smooth and straight beach. Perhaps it is because of the wave- 24 sheltering effects of the offshore rocks that the plantation’s structures were 25 built on the headland early in the twentieth century. (The buildings of 26 Cocal Uaymitún, further to the east, were built in a similar rock-protected 27 headland site in 1909.) 28 Alternating phases of shoreline erosion and accretion were documented 29 for this reach of the coast. Existing aerial photography (augmented by 30 personal interviews) revealed that the shoreline position has been highly 31 variable since 1948, especially to the west of the San Miguel headland. 32 Whether this is attributed to ‘pulses’ of longshore-driven sediments or 33 the onshore–offshore transport of beach sediments is not clearly under- 34 stood. The latter is a frequent natural process that varies seasonally as a 35 function of (1) the number and intensity of winter nortes, and (2) summer- 36 season barometric pressure and corollary sea levels (enhanced, of course, 37 by tropical cyclonic activity). Also not clearly understood is the sediment- 38 storage function of the headlands. Some years the San Miguel beaches 39 appeared to be wider, while at the same time the down-drift beaches 40 appeared narrower. On other images, the opposite seemed to be the case. 41 Although the scale and quality of the photographs precluded making deŽn- 42 itive conclusions about triggering mechanisms, the alternating phases of 43 erosion and accretion seem to be typical in this area (at least under natural 1144 conditions). 96 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 97 1 As recreational development took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, 2 the actual siting of the beachfront vacation homes played a great role in 3 the perception of erosion and subsequent attitudes toward groyne construc- 4 tion. A greater distance from the shoreline or, more importantly, a greater 5 distance behind the primary dunes ensured that erosion would not threaten 6 the foundations of homes. Many of the single-family summer homes 7 were built inland of the second line of dunes and, to date, they have not 8 been threatened by erosion. However, more frequently vacation homes 9 were built on or just behind the primary dune, as in the Diana Milán 10 subdivision. 11 The mid- to late-1980s was a period of much storm activity in the Gulf 12 of Mexico. The combination of shoreline erosion and hurricanes was 13 followed by groyne construction in those areas where threats to house 14 foundations were perceived. The 1985 hurricane season initiated a phase 15 of erosion in the Chicxulub Puerto/San Miguel area. Hurricane Gilbert, 16 however, which in 1988 destroyed or severely damaged every beachfront 17 structure along Yucatán’s north coast, surprisingly left a wider beach 18 along most of the coast (Meyer-Arendt 1991b, 1993). Within a few years, 19 however, as owners repaired their summer homes, the shoreline again 20 began to encroach. Based partly upon advice requested by and provided 21 to vacation-home owners by port employees moonlighting as erosion 22 consultants (and even calling themselves ‘engineers’), the Žrst groynes east 23 of Chicxulub Puerto were built in the early 1990s. (Some home owners 24 blamed the increased erosion east of Progreso upon the 5 km long rubble- 25 mound Progreso wharf extension, although no scientiŽc data support such 26 a position.) 27 An inventory of groynes conducted in 1994 revealed 28 1. intensive new groyne development west of the Chicxulub Puerto wharf, 29 2. a scattering of groynes between Chicxulub Puerto and Diana Milán, 30 and 31 3. a recently completed groyne Želd at Fraccionamiento Diana Milán. 32 33 At Diana Milán, an indentation in the shoreline had left homes perching 34 precariously just above the surf zone in 1994 and home owners had turned 35 to groynes as a ‘last resort’ to save their property. (Some claimed that an 36 up-drift home owner had earlier constructed a 50 m long groin to extend 37 the beach in front of his home, and this had caused the erosion at Diana 38 Milán. Aside from hearsay, no evidence or proof of this was ever collected.) 39 By late 1994, there were 12 groynes at Diana Milán and their ineffec- 40 tiveness was evident. The three up-drift groynes exhibited partial success 41 in trapping sand, but along the nine down-drift groynes, erosion had 42 increased and waves were lapping at the houses’ foundations. Luckily 43 (or not, in view of the odour), a wide swath of sargasso weed Žlled in this 1114 erosion-prone zone in late 1994 and temporarily reduced wave energy. 97 98 Meyer-Arendt 111 Home owners near the western end of the subdivision soon felt the 2 pressure to construct groynes, if only in the anticipation of trapping sand 3 and protecting their homes and salvaging their beach. Many, if not most, 4 of the home owners felt that, although groynes were unsightly and degraded 5 the beaches, they offered the last hope of keeping a beach in place. A 6 few resisted the temptation to build, but most gradually accepted groynes 7 as necessary evils. Again, private home owners did not petition for 8 permission from the Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología (SEDUE), 9 the federal regulatory agency, but rather contracted with unofŽcial 10 ‘coastal engineers’ to design and construct their private groynes. By 1995, 11 more groynes had been built to the west of Diana Milán – a trend of down- 12 drift groyne construction very reminiscent of a similar pattern at Yucalpetén 13 and Chelem in the 1970s. 14 By August 1999, the locus of down-drift groyne construction had 15 migrated all the way from Diana Milán to the Chicxulub Puerto wharf. 16 During a beach survey, approximately 100 groynes were counted, 80 per 17 cent of them constructed since 1994 (Figures 4 and 5). Although the shore- 18 line position did not appear to have changed signiŽcantly since 1994, 19 local home owners described short-term phases of erosion and accretion 20 in interviews with the author. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Figure 4 The shorefront east of the Chicxulub Puerto wharf, January 1984. Note 1144 San Miguel headland in far distance. 98 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 5 The Chicxulub Puerto wharf, view toward east, August 1999. Note 21 newly constructed groynes. 22 23 24 25 Although the natural phases of shoreline erosion apparently accelerated 26 the construction of groynes, there was little corollary evidence that the 27 groynes stimulated much beach accretion. One exception was at Diana 28 Milán, where most of the dozen groynes were now completely covered 29 by a nice wide beach This was, perhaps, a result of a natural ‘pulse’ of 30 sand moving in from the east. However, just as in introductory geology 31 or physical geography textbooks, most of the coastal landscape from Diana 32 Milán to Chicxulub Puerto had become very ‘scalloped’ because of the 33 groynes. Indeed, although the deeper water along the down-drift side of 34 the groynes now provided close-by anchorages for summer tourists’ power- 35 boats and jet-skis, the beach had seriously degraded from its pre-groynes 36 appearance. 37 Not only had the Chicxulub Puerto/San Miguel stretch begun to 38 resemble Chelem in 1999, but the same pattern was beginning to diffuse 39 eastward as well. At Tropical Riviera, a subdivision east of San Miguel 40 containing vacation homes and condominiums, 15 groynes were built in 41 late 1998 and early 1999. The impact of this recent development upon 42 the San Miguel headland and the down-drift beachfront of Diana Milán 43 is yet to be determined, but if other modiŽed shorelines offer any clues, 1114 the prognosis is not good. 99 100 Meyer-Arendt 111 Conclusions 2 3 Along the north coast of Yucatán, both older urban development and 4 newer recreational development must share blame for encroaching too 5 closely upon the primary dunes and shorefront to allow natural processes 6 of transgression and regression. Where the historical shorefront has been 7 altered by port and harbour improvements, down-drift erosion has been 8 accompanied by groyne construction that has only accelerated the problem 9 of beach erosion. The Yucalpetén and Chelem shorefronts still today 10 exhibit a post-Hurricane Gilbert landscape of concrete rubble instead of 11 a sand beach. The ineffective groynes there only add to the surreal and 12 depressing coastal landscape. 13 The degradation of the Yucalpetén and Chelem beaches has resulted 14 from both port/harbour construction and ineffective groyne- and seawall- 15 building efforts, but east of Chicxulub Puerto seasonal domestic tourists 16 alone are responsible for the recent degradation of the beaches. Poor siting 17 of vacation houses, an inability (or unwillingness) to adapt to a uctu- 18 ating shoreline and a propensity to turn to groyne construction are all to 19 blame for the aesthetic deterioration of the beachfront. Historical photos 20 have shown that this shoreline is fairly stable and that phases of erosion 21 and accretion are normal. The construction of over 100 groynes since 22 1990 has not improved the coastal environment but rather accelerated 23 the degradation of this coast similar to coastal reaches to the west. 24 Although construction of groynes without permits is illegal in Yucatán, 25 regulatory agencies such as SEDUE have no enforcement powers. In addi- 26 tion, since the summer-home owners represent the political and 27 professional élite of the state, it is unlikely that groynes will be banished. 28 Seasonal domestic tourism is responsible for the spreading of ineffec- 29 tual erosion-control techniques into pristine coastal landscapes. It is 30 apparent that certain minimal coastal-zone management techniques – such 31 as zoning and construction setbacks – need to be implemented to prevent 32 the entire north coast of Yucatán from resembling Chelem. International 33 tourism has recently begun in Yucatán (in the form of an all-inclusive 34 resort near Telchac Puerto, to the east of this study area), and local civic 35 boosters would like to attract cruise ships and more Cancún-style devel- 36 opment. However, if poor planning and beach armouring continue to 37 diffuse eastward, the shift of domestic to international tourism will be 38 quickly ‘nipped in the bud’. Unfortunately, with the exception of the estab- 39 lishment of wildlife preserves (especially in the pink amingo nesting sites), 40 there is no comprehensive management plan to guide touristic develop- 41 ment and beach preservation. Coastal management should be the 42 responsibility of the State of Yucatán, which stands to beneŽt from prop- 43 erly designed development of its coastal resources. While it may be too 1144 late to improve the aesthetic appearance of the 20-km coastal stretch 100 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 101 1 centred upon Progreso, it is within this zone that coastal managers need 2 to look to understand the processes of beach degradation associated with 3 urban development, port improvements, hurricanes and tourism develop- 4 ment. Hopefully, lessons learned can be applied to the remainder of 5 Yucatán’s beautiful beaches. 6 7 8 Acknowledgements 9 10 Much of the research summarized in this article was gathered in 1994 as 11 part of a Fulbright Senior Scholar Research Award funded by the USA’s 12 Fulbright Foundation and Mexico’s García-Robles Foundation. Portions 13 of the introductory material are based upon Želd research supported by 14 the US National Science Foundation in 1985–7. Additional Želdwork was 15 conducted in 1996 and 1999, and travel funds were provided by 16 Mississippi State University and the University of West Florida, respec- 17 tively. Many thanks are extended to Michele D. Meyer-Arendt for the 18 maps and Želd assistance. 19 20 21 References 22 23 Campos, M. R. 1990. Cambios en la Batimetria del Muelle de Altura de Puerto 24 Progreso de Castro, Yucatán, Mexico. BS Thesis. Mexico: Universidad 25 Autónoma de Baja California, Ensenada, Dept. of Marine Sciences. 26 Davis. J. H. 1956. Inuence of man upon coast lines. In Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, ed. William H. Thomas, Jr, pp. 504–21. Chicago: 27 University of Chicago Press. 28 Edwards, C. 1954. Geographical reconnaissance in the Yucatán Peninsula. 29 Manuscript prepared under OfŽce of Naval Research Contract No. 22 (11) 30 NR 388 067. University of California, Berkeley: Department of Geography. 31 Fabbri, P. (ed.) 1990. Recreational Uses of Coastal Areas. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 32 Ferrer, G. 1945 (reprinted 1977). Historia de las comunicaciones. In Enciclopedia 33 Yucatanense, Vol. 3, ed. C. A. Echanove, pp. 507–626. Mérida: Government 34 of Yucatán. 35 Fletcher, C. H., Mullane, R. A. and Richmond, B. M. 1997. Beach loss along 36 armored shorelines on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Coastal Research 13(1): 209–15. 37 Frías, R. and Frías, R. 1984. Progreso y Su Evolución, 1910–1917. Progreso, 38 Yucatán: Editorial El Faro. 39 Gutierrez, W. 1983. Yucatán: Legendaria Llanura Sobre un Manto de Coral. 40 Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública. 41 Gutierrez-Estrada, M., Castro-Del Río, A. and Galaviz-Solis, A. 1988. Mexico. In ArtiŽcial Structures and Shorelines, ed. H. J. Walker, pp. 669–78. Dordrecht, 42 Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 43 Isphording, W. C. 1975. The physical geology of Yucatán. Transactions, Gulf 1114 Coast Association of Geological Societies 25: 231–62. 101 102 Meyer-Arendt 111 Jaakson, R. 1986. Second-home domestic tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 2 13: 367–91. 3 Johnson, D. W. 1919. Shore Processes and Development. New York: Wiley and Sons. 4 Merino, M. 1987. The coastal zone of Mexico. Coastal Management 15: 27–42. 5 Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1987a. Recreational landscape evolution along the north 6 Yucatán coast. Yearbook, Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 13: 7 45–50. 8 Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1987b. Resort Evolution along the Gulf of Mexico Littoral: Historical, Morphological, and Environmental Aspects. PhD Dissertation. 9 Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. 10 Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1990. Patterns and impacts of coastal recreation along the 11 Gulf Coast of Mexico. In Recreational Uses of Coastal Areas, ed. P. Fabbri, 12 pp. 133–48. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1991a. Hurricane Gilbert: the storm of the century. Geojournal 13 23: 323–5. 14 Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1991b. Tourism development on the north Yucatán coast: 15 Human response to shoreline erosion and hurricanes. Geojournal 23: 327–36. 16 Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1993. Shoreline changes along the north Yucatán coast. In 17 Coastlines of the Gulf of Mexico, ed. S. Laska and A. Puffer, pp. 103-17. Coastlines of the World series (gen. ed. O. Magoon,). American Society of 18 Civil Engineers, NY. Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Coastal and 19 Ocean Management (Coastal Zone ’93), New Orleans, 19–23 July. 20 Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1999. Impacto ambiental provocado por el cambio del uso 21 de suelo en la zona de Progreso, Yucatán. In Atlas de Procesos Territoriales 22 de Yucatán, ed. A. García, pp. 259–61. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. 23 Moseley, E. H and Terry, E. D. 1980. Yucatán: A World Apart. AL: University 24 of Alabama Press. 25 Mosiño, P. A. and García, E. 1974. The climate of Mexico. In Climates of North 26 America, Vol. 11, World Survey of Climatology, ed. R. A. Bryson and F. K. 27 Hare, pp. 354–404. New York: Elsevier. Paré, L. and Fraga, J. 1994. La Costa de Yucatán: Desarrollo y Vulnerabilidad 28 Ambiental. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. Mexico City: 29 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 30 Pearce, D. 1989. Tourist Development. New York: Longman ScientiŽc & Technical. 31 Psuty, N. P. 1967. The Geomorphology of Beach Ridges in Tabasco, Mexico. 32 Coastal Studies Series 18. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Sánchez, J. and Vera, R. 1963. Estudios Preliminares Realizados en the Ciénaga 33 de Progreso, Yucatán. Mexico City: Departamento de Estudios y Laboratorios 34 de la Dirección General de Obras Marítimas. 35 Sapper, K. 1945 (reprinted 1977). Geología de la Península de Yucatán. In 36 Enciclopedia Yucatanense, Vol. 1, ed. C. A. Echanove, pp. 19–42. Mérida: 37 Government of Yucatán. Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT). 1986. Estudio de Evolución 38 de Linea de Playa entro Progreso y Chelem, Yucatán. Mexico City. 39 Stapor, F. W., Jr. 1971. Origin of the Cabo Rojo beach-ridge plain, Veracruz, 40 Mexico. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 21: 41 223–30. Tanner, W. F. 1975. Symposium on beach erosion in Middle America: Introduction. 42 Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 25: 365–8. 43 Tanner, W. F. and Stapor, Jr, F.W. 1971. Tabasco beach-ridge plain: an eroding 1144 coast. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 21: 231–2. 102 Environment: Recreational development, Yucatán 103 1 Vivó, J. A. 1964. Weather and climate of Mexico and Central America. In 2 Handbook of Middle American Indians, ed. R. Wauchope, Vol. 1, pp. 3 187–215, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Walker, H. J. 1981. Man and shoreline modiŽcation. In Coastal Dynamics and 4 ScientiŽc Sites: Reports on the Projects of the I.G.U. Commission on the 5 Coastal Environment 1976–1980, ed. Eric C. F. Bird and Kazuyuki Koike, 6 pp. 55–90. Tokyo: Komazawa University. 7 Walker, H. J. 1984. Man’s impact on shorelines and nearshore environments: A 8 geomorphological perspective. Geoforum 15(3): 395–417. Walker, H. J. (ed.) 1988. ArtiŽcial Structures and Shorelines. Dordrecht, Nether- 9 lands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10 Wilson, E. M. 1980. Physical geography of the Yucatán Peninsula. In Yucatán: A 11 World Apart, ed. E. H. Moseley and E. D. Terry, pp. 5–40. University, AL: 12 University of Alabama Press. 13 Wong, P. P. (ed.) 1993. Tourism vs Environment: The Case for Coastal Areas. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 14 15 16 17 Biographical note 18 19 Klaus J. Meyer-Arendt is Professor and Chair in the Department of 20 Environmental Studies at the University of West Florida in Pensacola. His 21 research interests include the interaction of physical and cultural processes 22 in coastal environments of the USA and Latin America. He has been inves- 23 tigating tourism development and shoreline changes in Yucatán since his 24 honeymoon there two decades ago. (Department of Environmental Studies, 25 University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 26 32514; e-mail: [email protected]) 27 28 29 Résumé: Le développement récreatif et la modiŽcation du littoral qui 30 borde la cote nord du Yucatan, Méxique 31 Plus d’un siècle; la cote nord du Yucatan a toujours été une destination touristique. 32 Depuis 1945, le développement récreatif a crée 20 kilometres de pavillons d’été cen- 33 tré sur le port de Progreso. En réponse aux travaux d’amélioration dans le port et 34 la gare maritime et l’erosion corollaire, les propriétaires de maisons secondaires ont 35 renforcés le littoral avec des brise-lames et ont causés de graves dégradations 36 physique et ésthétique du paysage litttoral. Depuis 1990, la cote ascendante est pro- tegée et ésthétiquement dégradée. Ici l’impulsion de modiŽer le littoral était une 37 réponse à la construction médiocre et l’incapacité des proriétaires des maisons de 38 vacance de s’adapter aux processus naturels de concrétion et l’érosion qui carac- 39 térisent cet environnement. Tandis que les brise-lames se répandent à l’est de la 40 plage virginal, les efforts de développer le tourisme international peuvent etre 41 retardés par la dégradation environnementale résultant de la modiŽcation littorale. 42 43 Mots-clés: tourisme littoral, développement récreatif, modiŽcation littorale, 1114 brise-lames, Yucatan (Méxique) 103 104 Meyer-Arendt 111 Abstacto: El desarrollo recreativo y modiŽcación de la linea de playa 2 por la costa norte de Yucatán, Mexico 3 4 La costa norte de Yucatán ha sido un destino para turistas domésticos desde más 5 que un siglo. Desde 1945, el proceso de dessarrolo recreativo ha creado una zona veraniega de 20 km de largo alrededor del puerto de Progreso. En respuesta a la 6 erosión de linea de playa causada por obras portuarias, dueños de casas veran- 7 iegas han construído espolones (espigones) que han causado una degradación 8 estética del paisaje costero. Desde 1990, aún la costa arriba y al este de Progreso 9 (no afectado por obras portuarias) fue protegida con espolones. En esta zona, las 10 razones para modiŽcar la linea de playa incluyen malos métodos de construcción (tan cerca a la playa) y una incapacidad de los dueños de propiedad privada a 11 ajustarse a los procesos naturales de acrecimiento y erosión que son characterís- 12 ticos de este medio ambiente. Hoy la zona de construcción de espolones está 13 moviendose al este dónde las playas todavía no están destruyendose por la 14 población veraniega. Pero planes de desarrollar turismo internacional en esta región 15 tienen el riesgo de no ser realizados si la modiŽcación de la linea de playa degrada el medio ambiente costero. 16 17 18 Las palabras claves: turismo costero, desarrollo recreativo, modiŽcación 19 costera, linea de playa, espigones, Yucatán (México) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1144 104