Local Government Planning for Coastal Protection: a Case Study of Cantabrian Municipalities, Spain Author(S): D

Home , Alfoz de Lloredo, Arnuero, Bareyo, Castro Urdiales, Comillas, Liendo

Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc.

Local Government Planning for Coastal Protection: A Case Study of Cantabrian Municipalities, Spain Author(s): D. W. Fischer, V. Rivas, A. Cendrero Source: Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 858-874 Published by: Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4298386 Accessed: 12/05/2010 12:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cerf.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Coastal Research.

http://www.jstor.org JournalofCoastal Research 11 3 858-874Fort Lauderdale, FloridaSummer 1995

Local Government Planning for Coastal Protection: A Case Study of CantabrianMunicipalities, Spain D. W. Fischert, V. Rivast and A. Cendrerot

tGraduate Center for Public tD.C.T.T.Y.M. Divisi6n Ciencias Policy and Administration de la Tierra California State University Facultad de Ciencias Long Beach, CA 90840, U.S.A. Universidad de Cantabria 39005 Santander, Spain

ABSTRACT I

FISCHER.D.W.; RIVAS, V., and CENDRERO,A., 1995.Local governmentplanning for coastal protection:A case study of Cantabrianmunicipalities, Spain. Journal of CoastalResearch, 11(3), 858-874. Fort Lauderdale(Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. ,ffRA This paper describes a survey of Cantabrianlocal public officials to determine the degree of coastal protectionwithin their municipaljurisdictions. The Cantabriancoastal zone has been intensivelystudied by physicalscientists and Span implementeda recent coastal protectionlaw. Given the growingdevel- opmentpressures in coastal Cantabria,the study was undertakento assess the emphasisgiven to coastal planningby local governments.The findingsshow that the municipalitieslack basic knowledgeof their coastal zones and strive to develop them for greatertourism use rather than create managementplans for coastalprotection.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Local officials, coastal protection, coastal hazards, Spain.

INTRODUCTION and urbanization. Spanish citizens are moving from inland areas to settle in urban enclaves Spain's coastal zone spans some 7,880 km of along the coast and over of the coastline borderingon three seas: the Cantabrian, presently 54% population live within km the Mediterraneanand the Atlantic.While Spain's 50 of the sea. With a de- interiorand a coastal capital is located in the center of the country, it populating highly populated investments in is a coastal-orientednation.' Spain's coastal zone fringe, major infrastructurehave been for the coastal zone to receives massive foreign and domestic tourism targeted include mod- ernization of (tourismaccounts for 10% of total earningsin the ports, airports, highways, sewage treatment facilities and New de- country, according to the Ministry of Industry, parks. housing also concentrate Commerceand Tourism; press releases, January velopment to a great extent on the coast. Coastal works are a 1994). Spain's fishing fleet represents about half protective large item in the national based on a recent of the European Community fishing fleet, and budget national that an investment of Spaniards consume high amounts of seafood. As plan contemplates U.S. million over a of 15 a manufacturing nation, Spain has the eighth $1500 period years (GA- largest economy in the world (OECD, 1993). LLARDO,1993). All of this economic interest in the coastal zone During the last two or three decades coastal in has taken means that the Spanish coast is under enormous development Spain place mainly along the Mediterraneancoast and the Balearic and Ca- developmentpressure. While fishing and industry Islands because of their with are large users of the coast, tourism is the driving nary popularity northern force behind much of new coastal development European tourists. The resulting developments have generated considerable environmental damage along many coastal segments. The northern coast, with relatively high rainfall and fewer hours of sun has 94022 received and accepted 5 May 1994. per year, experienced less 'A recent study noted that large coastal nations with inland capitals development pressure and is, as a result, in better did not tend to be orientedto their coastal zone. This statement would appearnot to applyto Spain.See SORENSEN,J; MCCREARY,S., and BRANDANI, environmentalcondition. Development pressures A. (1992).Arreglos institucionales para manejar ambientes y recursoscos- have increased in the northern coastal zone, and teros.Kingston: Coastal Resources Center, University of RhodeIsland, p. 26. there is growing concern of degradation similar Local Planning, Cantabria, Spain 859 to that observed along the Mediterranean.How- and concessions in cooperation with regional ever, the northern coast is in a better position for and local governments. ensuring a balanced development of this coastal The distribution of powers with respect to the area that integrates environmentalaspects. coastal zone between the central, regional and lo- Given these major coastal concerns, it is not cal governments is not completely clear. The re- surprising that Spain has moved to legislate for gional level of authority, only established in 1982, the protection of the coast. The Shores Act of are autonomous levels of government which have 1988 was founded on several premises (MINISTRY only begun to legislate in the area of coastal plan- OF PUBLIC WORKS AND URBANISM, 1989): ning. The region of Cantabriais one of these new -shift in population to the coast with a density regional authorities which are similar to states in four times higher than the national average; the U.S. The key matters of approvalswithin 100 -rapid privatizationand developmentof the coast m public shoreline easement and local municipal with reduced public access, increased shore- zoning plans affecting the coast require approvals front construction,high density transportroutes from the appropriatefield offices of the Ministry and unprocessed waste; of Public Works and Urbanization (MOPU). -shoreline erosion and loss of salt marshes from However,the regional authority is responsiblefor public and private development; final approval of local zoning plans, general land -loss of inherent public values through the deg- use planning, urban planning and housing devel- radation of the natural coastal environment; opment. Because most regionalgovernments have -fragmented legislative coverage of coastal uses not yet passed coastal legislation, active planning and rights of use. of coastal lands is done by municipalities through their land use These must Because of these concerns The Shores Act sets general plans. plans conform to the established forth a new to the coastal zone to in- general guidelines by approach master but the lack of def- clude: regional plans, precise inition of the coastal zone within the region and -creation of a 100 m protection easement in un- how it is integrated into this three tiered system developed areas of the coast and a 20 m pro- means that municipalitiesset the stage for coastal tection zone in urbanized areas2; planning (SuAREZ DE VIVERO, 1992). -creation of 500 m zone of influence inland from The objective of this paper is to report on the the landward limit of the shoreline to ensure status of coastal planning in Cantabrian munic- adequate public access and stricter zoning of ipalities relative to their general plans. A second- building density; ary objective is to assess the extent of existing -shift in the concept of coastal propertyto public knowledge about the natural environment and uses that involve no fixed installations; hazards in this coastal area by local officials re- -declaration of public property for all areas of sponsible for planning and development deci- shoreline accretion, small islands, sea flooding, sions. This research relies on a case study ap- cliffs, etc. proach to understandhow the coastal municipali- -beaches declared as public property with strict ties in one autonomous region of northern Spain limits on locating concessions and installations respond to development pressures. supporting beach uses; -forbidding drainageof all salt marshesand min- SELECTEDPREVIOUS STUDIES of sand and in rivers and ing gravel beaches; Most research on coastal and waste and fill in the coastal focusing planning -regulating disposal is at the national and state or area of development pro- influence; vincial levels. Far fewer studies have focused on -regulating coastal development construction broadsurveys of municipalplanning in the coastal zone. One of the earliest efforts was research on 2 These public protection zones are landward from the limit of the sea- the response of coastal municipalities to coastal shore which itself is delimited by the "zone between the lowest water mark of high spring tides and the highest limit reached by the waves in the flood hazard (BURTON et al., 1969). This research greatest known storms, or, the highest water mark of spring tides, which- reported on the adaptions municipalities were ever is higher". The 100 m begins from the highest water mark landward and can even be extended another 100 m upon agreement of all three levels making to coastal storm experience in order to of government (Ministry of Public Works and Urbanism, 1989, pp. 20,26). reduce the associated losses of and The 500 m zone influence includes the 100 m zone (Ministry of Public life, property Works and Urbanism, 1989, p. 29). local revenues. The study area covered the eastern

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 860 Fischer, Rivas and Cendrero

U.S. coast from Maine throughto North Carolina Louisianasurveys showed the need for clearerpol- from which 15 municipalities were selected for icies from state governments to assist local land case studies. A major finding was that land use use planning in potentially hazardous coastal ar- zoning is best left to local governments,and their eas. Coastal hazardinformation was deemed lack- regulations of land use recognize flood hazard ing, as well as the regulatorymeasures needed to planningon the basis of the degree of hazardfaced reduce development in threatened areas. Sur- at each location. In this way the type of use and prisingly, only four out of the 48 California local construction can be adjusted to fit the degree of governments surveyed had a specific ordinance hazard involved. dealing with geologic hazards. Even though the A survey of all coastal counties in Florida hav- Louisiana study dealt specifically with sea level ing a sandy beachfront(FISCHER et al., 1984,1986) rise and the California study dealt with coastal focused on local officials' perceptions and re- erosion and flooding, both studies showed that sponses to shoreline erosion. Detailed question- local officialsfelt they lacked the regulatorymea- naires sought information on local coastal objec- sures to address the problems they faced. While tives, physical beach trends, beachfrontland uses no official wanted to restrict development in re- and planning, erosion control measures favored, sponse to coastal hazard, local governments and coastal issues encountered in beach manage- seemed increasingly aware of the conflicts they ment. Results showed coastal county officialswere faced between public and private concerns. on the whole responding to beach erosion and The above research is centered on U.S. expe- developingmeasures for reducingdune and beach riences. No studies could be found which surveyed loss via their general plans. In addition, the eco- local official attitudes or opinions toward coastal nomic and policy issues associated with shoreline management concerns in Spain. While Spanish erosion were enumerated in FISCHER (1990). governmentreports may exist on this topic, none The study of growth managementwithout spe- of these efforts were found in the published lit- cific referenceto coastal concerns was prominent erature. in the U.S. in the 1980's.For example, both state The north coast of Spain (Figure 1) is charac- and local levels of concernwere addressed in sur- terized by a mild climate with relatively high rain- veys of development growth pressures and plan- fall (averageyearly temperature14 ?Cand rainfall ning responses by the appropriate government 1,200 mm). It includes a rocky, cliffed coast punc- agencies (BROWER et al., 1989; DE GROVE, 1984; tuated with sandy pocket beaches and larger DE GROVE and STROUD, 1988; MANTELL et al., beaches, as well as wetlands along riverine estu- 1990). In general, these studies show that inno- aries. Mountains with altitudes of 2,000-2,600 m vative yet aggressiveapproaches by state govern- are situated within 35-50 km from the coast. ments were successful in guiding local growth The populationin the three autonomousregions planning in order to preserve the physical envi- bordering the Cantabrian Sea numbers some 4 ronment. At the local government level, the use million people, of which close to 3 million live of mandatedcomprehensive planning fostered in- within a 15 km coastal strip (CENDRERO, 1989). novative approachesto balancingthe demands for The autonomous region of Cantabria, located in environmentalquality with new development (DE the central part of this stretch of coastline (Figure GROVE,1991). 1), is representative of the "average"conditions Two studies of local government responses to in the area. This region is neither subject to high coastal hazardwere recently completed. The first urban-industrial concentrations, such as in the concentrated on California'smunicipal effort to Basque Country,to the east, nor does it have long develop and protect their coastal zones via mu- stretches of undeveloped coast as in Asturias, to nicipal ordinancesand regulations(GRIGGS et al., the west. The economy of the region is in reason- 1992). This study relied on a questionnaire and able balancebetween the majorsectors of tourism, interviews noting the use of setback standards, industry, agricultureand fisheries. technical study requirements, regulation of sea- Cantabriahas a population of 530,000 and in- walls, and desired changes from state agencies. cludes an area of 5,200 km2. Out of the 102 mu- The second study used a telephone survey to de- nicipalities in the region, 33 have part of their termine Louisiana coastal residents' and local of- territory bordering the open coast or an estuary. ficials' views on the impacts of sea level rise (LAS- These municipalities represent 66% of the total KA and EMMER, 1992). The California and population. There is a growing domestic tourism,

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 Local Planning, Cantabria,Spain 861

15 11 7y16 y12 1 4 y 17 S9

6 7 10 19 2 45 2 3

Province of Cantabria /

S1.- Val de San Vicente 2.- San Vicente de la Barquera 3.- Valdiliga 4.- Comillas 5.- Ruiloba 6.- Alfoz de Lloredo 7.- Santillana 8.- Suances 9.- Miengo / 10.- Pi6lagos 11.-Santa Cruz de Bezana 12.- Santander .... 13.- Ribamontfn al Mar 14.- Bareyo Spain 15.- Arnuero 16.- Noja 17.- Santofia 18.- Laredo 19.- Liendo 20.- Castro Urdiales

Figure 1. Location map showing Cantabrianmunicipalities with an open coast.

particularlyduring July and Augustwhen existing coastline and of land uses along it (RIVASand coastal populations may increase from 4 to 20 CENDRERO, 1991) to the assessment of hazards times. This tourism has promoted the rapid de- (RIvAsand CENDRERO, 1993), the determination velopment of housing in ruralareas of these coast- of the erosive condition of cliffs (RIvAs and al municipalities. Spaniards vacationing in Can- CENDRERO, 1992), detailed analyses of specific ar- tabria prefer to buy or rent flats in new high-rise eas for urban planning (FRANCES et al., 1990a, b), buildings or separate dwellings rather than stay- natural park planning (FRANCES et al., 1990a, b), ing in hotels or camping areas. This demand for and restorationof degradedareas (FRANCES et al., ownership of seasonal housing has extended ur- 1992;RIVAS et al., 1992). However,it is not known banization into areas formerlyoccupied solely by to what extent these findings have been incor- dairy farms during the past. porated into the planning of the Cantabrian Within Cantabria, a series of studies on the coastline. analysis and assessment of environmental con- METHODOLOGY ditions and natural hazardsfor planning purposes has been conducted. These studies ranged from The data for this study were obtained from a general analyses of the historical evolution of the questionnairethat asked local officialsto describe

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 862 Fischer, Rivas and Cendrero

Table 1. Cantabrian coastal municipalities from west to east, as in Figure 1.

Population/ Population Coastal Length Coastline Cliffs Beaches Estuaries Val de S. Vicente 2,487 19.2 129.7 9.5 1.1 8.5 S. Vicente de la B. 4,349 40.5 107.4 6.0 4.0 30.5 4.5 Valdidiga 2,618 6.0 436.3 0.0 1.5 Comillas 2,461 8.0 307.6 4.0 0.5 3.5 Ruiloba 731 6.0 121.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 Alfoz de Lloredo 2,778 8.7 317.5 8.5 0.2 0.0 Santillana 3,839 4.5 853.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 Suances 5,842 19.1 305.8 6.5 1.6 11.0 Miengo 2,964 28.4 104.1 5.0 1.4 22.0 Piblagos 9,537 19.1 499.3 5.0 2.6 11.5 Bezana 5,280 4.4 1,193.2 3.0 0.3 1.1 Santander 196,218 30.7 6,391.5 14.0 2.7 14.0 Ribamontain al Mar 2,892 19.9 144.9 7.5 5.4 7.0 Bareyo 1,576 20.6 76.5 9.0 0.3 11.2 Arnuero 1,884 13.7 137.5 5.0 0.2 8.5 Noja 1,562 13.7 113.6 2.5 4.7 6.5 Santofia 10,929 17.3 631.0 6.0 2.3 9.0 Laredo 13,019 13.5 964.3 5.0 4.5 4.0 Liendo 787 5.1 155.0 5.0 0.1 0.0 Castro 13,575 33.3 407.3 21.5 2.1 9.7

Note: All coastal features are measured in kilometers. Population is based on official census, 1991 their planning for the coastal zone within their scope of the study using selected indicators of respective municipalities. population and length of geomorphic features. The municipalities selected were all, as indi- The questions asked of these local officials in- cated above, in the autonomous region of Can- cluded the topics of what coastal problems were tabria. It was chosen as the study area not only being experienced, what coastal features were because of its representative character, but also protected,what coastalhazards were avoided, what because of the ability to build on earlier contacts, economic activities were promoted, their knowl- existing knowledge of the area, and the ease and edge of sea level rise, response to conflicts in- economy of administering the interviews. All volving coastal protection and development, and coastal municipalities with cliffs and/or sandy their preferences for the protection of selected beaches were incorporatedinto the study regard- coastal features.3 Both open-ended and closed- less of population size and length of coastline. ended questions were used. The questions used Municipalities without an open coast or without were drawn in part from the Californiaand Lou- a substantial part of the coast of a bay were elim- isiana studies previously described. inated from the study. Thus, 20 municipalities It is recognized that coastal planning can be with open coast were included and are shown in influenced by the national, regional and local lev- Figure 1 and in Table 1. This table summarizes els of government as well as non-governmental two key aspects: the size of the permanent mu- organizations and the general public. However, nicipal population and the length of its coastline this study focused on local government because in terms of its physical features and the number it is a central arenawhere coastal plans are forged, of residents per kilometer of shoreline. The table interpreted and implemented. Local government ignores tourist populations. Santander, the cap- officials integrate the requirements of other gov- ital of Cantabria and its largest city, ranks the ernmental levels with demands from their con- highest in terms of the population/coastlineratio. stituents to create the plans that shape the de- On the other hand, Bezana, ranking second, has velopment of their respective coastal zones. a more balancedrelationship between population Therefore, this study was directed solely to local and its length of coast. Bareyo, ranked last, has a low in relation to its coastal very population 3 For a copy of the questionnaire in either English or Spanish write the length. Thus, this table indicates the geographic lead author.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 Local Planning, Cantabria,Spain 863 governments in the first such survey conducted Table 2. Positions of local government officials interviewed. in Spain. OfficialsInterviewed An advance copy of the questions was sent to the mayorof each municipalitywith an open coast. Municipalities Mayor Planner Both Along with the questions, a cover letter was en- Val de S. Vicente X closed to request that the questions be discussed S. Vicente de la B. X with the to ensure that polit- Valdiliga X municipal planner Comillas X ical and technical considerationswere integrated Ruiloba X priorto an interview. Each respondent was asked Alfoz de Lloredo X each of the open-ended questions in the order Santillana X presented in the questionnaire and their re- Suances X were recorded the interviewer.At the Miengo X sponses by Pielagos x end of each open-ended response, a set of pre- Bezana X scribed options was presented to the respondent Santander X to see if any of these new possibilities could be Ribamontin al Mar X added to their In this Bareyo X open-ended response. way, X both and closed-ended were Arnuero open-ended responses Noja X obtained. Santofia X The respondents interviewed included both Laredo X elected and appointed officials. The personal Liendo X Castro X schedules of the mayor and planner dictated the schedulefor interviews;although in the beginning of the study, both were interviewed to test the degreeof corroborationbetween mayorsand plan- ners. It was found that the request to discuss the zones (regardless of width), eight municipalities questions between the mayor and planner prior do not emphasize any particular features of the to the interview assisted in integrating relevant coastal zone, even though some have outstanding points of view. Also the small number of munic- features. For example, Val de San Vicente has the ipal officials and the small size of each of the highest coastal cliffs with the least coastal devel- municipalitiesmeant that both mayors and plan- opment, yet it has not planned for its cliffs as a ners had intimate knowledgeof local politics and coastal asset. Santillana del Marhas a cliffed coast coastal concerns.Table 2 indicates individuals in- with significantscenic features and a small pocket terviewedin each of the municipalities.All 20 sets sandy beach, yet its orientation to its historical of local officials cooperated fully with the study village and the Altamira Cave has resulted in a team. deemphasis of its coastal zone. Other municipal- Since the focus of the study was on describing ities clearly emphasize selected coastal landforms the degree of coastal-centered planning done by within their zones such as Piblagoswhich has large the municipalities, the data from the questions dunefields, albeit protected through provincial were subjected to a qualitative analysis. For each park status. Noja, on the other hand, has con- question, the number of municipalities respond- ferred municipal park status on its small dunal ing to that element were counted, totaled and area within the 100 m zone. placed into a table that groupedsimilar questions Table 3 also shows the range of problems ex- and responses. Because the number of munici- perienced by these municipalities. For example, palities in the study universewas only 20, no sum- 13 out of 20 municipalities reported water pol- mariesof the data were made other than percents. lution as a recurringproblem, making it the largest reportedproblem afflictingthese areas. On the SURVEYRESULTS AND DISCUSSION other hand, erosion is not seen as a majorproblem As shown in Table 3, only eight out of twenty on the Cantabriancoast as only one municipality coastal municipalities define their coastal zones noted beach erosion and three others cliff erosion. beyond the required 100 m. The remainder either The most recent coastal problems consisted of use the definition of 100 m contained in The Shores growing urbanization, scarcity in availability of Act of 1988 or use the boundaries of provincial public services, waste disposal and wetland loss parks as their defined zones. Within their coastal respectively. Nearly half of the municipalities re-

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 864 Fischer, Rivas and Cendrero

Table 3. Officially recognized aspects of the coastal zone by Cantabrian municipality in order from west to east as shown in Figure 1.

CoastalZone Problems Municipalities CoastalZone CoastalZone Definition Emphasis N BE WP CE WL CF A WD IU C SI SD LD RC El SPS O Valde SanVicente a S. Vicentede laBarquera b a-b-c-d-e-f ValdAiiga b a-b-c-d-e-f Comillas c - Ruiloba c b-d-f Alfozde Lloredo a - Santillana a - Suances c a-b-c-d-e-f Miengo a b-c Pidlagos a a Sta.Cruz de Bezana c b Santander c b-e Ribamontnal Mar c a-b-c-d-e-f Bareyo c Amuero a Noja a a-b-c- Santofla b a-b-c-d Laredo c b Liendo a - CastroUrdiales a Totalnumber 0 1 13 3 2 4 1 4 2 1 9 0 1 2 9 0 0 5 6515 10 20 5 20 10 5 45 0 5 10450 %o 0 [ = recent problems, = persistent problems Coastal zone definition:a = only 100 m zone, b = coastal parks, c = wider than 100 m. Coastal zone emphasis: a = dunes, b = beaches, c = wetlands, d = cliff tops, e = parks, f = fauna/flora, ? = don't know. Coastal zone problems: N = none, BE = beach erosion, WP = water pollution, CE = cliff erosion, WL = wetland loss, CF = channel filling, LNA = loss of natural areas, WD = waste disposal, IU = intense urbanization, C = congestion, SI = scarcity of infrastructure, SD = scattered development, LD = landscapedegradation, RC = recreationalconflicts, El = engineeringinfrastructure impacts, SPS = scarcityof public services, O = others

ported having recently occurring coastal prob- would be willing to protect additional features. lems. This lack of protection implies a coastal zone ripe Table 4 is more specific and shows that all 20 for development pressures. Indeed, political pres- municipalities protect certain natural features sure is building among the western municipalities found in their coastal zones. The first three mu- for reducing the development restriction con- nicipalities protect the most features since they tained in the Natural Park of Oyambre (CORTA- contain parts of the provincial Natural Park of BITARTE, 1993). Oyambre. Beaches appear to be the most pro- Features are protected through a variety of tected feature; although, Comillas, Ruiloba, Noja measures such as normal building codes, land use and Castro Urdiales do not mention beach pro- planning, bans on selected activities and con- tection, even though these municipalities depend struction permits. In addition, buffer zones upon them for their tourism industry. Cliff tops (meaning 100 m zone) are noted in 14 out of the also are noted as being protected, but since they 20 municipalities. Financial incentives are not are within the 100 m national protection zone, used. Land purchase to protect features is done they cannot be developed. The least protected in two municipalities, while two others use edu- features are those beyond the 100 m zone which cational programs to assist in the protection of include coastal open space, coastal farms, and coastal features. Clearly, there is a need to stan- coastal flora and fauna. Only six municipalities dardize the use of protection measures by these

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 Table 4. Parts of natural coastal zone legally protected by municipalities.

Naturalfeatures protected Measuresused to protect Municipalities MuicpaitesR yCtj F W OS 0 B R ACPJ SB P I E n TI SZ HT E P I 0 Val de SanVicente de la Barquera aS.Vicente Valddiliga .. Comillas Ruiloba Alfoz de Llored6 Santillana M

0 Suances 0 Miengo 0 Pilagos Sta.Cruz de Bezana c- .0 Ribamontbnal Mar a, a. Noja... 0d Santofia 0 CastreyoUrdiales .. Laredo Liendo,.. CastroUrdiales - .. TotalTotalnumbernumber 11573 6 1"0 4 1 1 10 1881815158 8 5 1"838 2 3008021200" -" " 8 0 2 1" 6 6 2 5020 4015 5200 854010 15 0 0 40 0 %75 3553075 904005175 017013013010

0 = protected,1 = would like to protect Natural features protected:B = beaches, R = rivers,D = dunes, By = bays, CT = cliff tops, V = vegetation,F = farms,W = wetland areas,OS = open spaces. Fl = flora, HB = historicalbuildings, Fn = fauna, O = others. Measuresused to protect:B = ban activities,R = regulation,LUP = land use planning, CP = constructionpermits, PS = performancestandards, BC = building code, I = investments in infrastructure,PL = purchaseof land, E = expropriation,TI = tax incentives,S = subsidies,Z = zoning,HT = highertaxes, EP = educationalprograms, BZ = buffer zone, EIS = environmentalimpact studies, P = police power,0 = others

m2 01 Table 5. Actions taken or considered in the process of granting legal protection to the coastal zone by municipalities.

Studiesdone to protection Indicatorsused to assessneed for protection Potentialsolutions willing to consider IR MunicipalitiesMunicipalities - supplo-t igt xnle euaIonlatio NB E VI ESSEEIA UPIOPODP LI LR LA MRESOM IC RCOPC BC PS RPI LT BZ P ESEP CRP OP N IDK ValdeSanVicente S. VicentedelaBarquera - Valdfliga "------Comillas -"" B Ruiloba . . . . Alfoz de Lloredo - - 0 Santillana Suances

0 Miengo B. Pidlagos a Sta. de Bezana -

CD SantanderCrunz Ribamontinal Mar - C) -lmi P0D Bareyo Amuero C-)a Noja B z l ii --l 0 Santofia II a. CD 03 Laredo 0 Liendo 01 CastroUrdiales ! Totalnumber 133 1 3 5 2 2 4 7 1 14 2 7 1 0 1 0 6 0 44 0 2 133 0 0 5 4 1 7 3 2 2 2 91 55 65 15 5 15 25 10 10 20 35 5 70 10 35 5 0 5 0 30 0 20 20 % 0 10 5 15 15 0 0 25 20 5 35 15 10 10045 5 2525

Studies done to supportprotection: N = none, B = biological,E = engineering,V = vegetation,UP = urbanplanning, G = geological,ES = endangeredspecies, SE = socioeconomic, EIA = environmentalimpact studies, O = others. Indicatorsused to assess need for protection:PO = personalobservations, DP = demands for protection,RHG = requiredby higherlevel of government,LI = loss of activities incomes,LR = loss of residents,LA = loss of accessibility,MR = media reports,ES = expert studies, OM = other municipalities, IC = informalcommunication, RC = residentcomplaints, O = others.Potential solutionswilling to consider:PC = prohibitconstruction, BC = buildingcode, LPS = limit of parcel size, LPD = limit of parcel density, RPI = restrictionnew public infrastructure,LT = lowertaxes, HES = higher engineeringstandards, BZ = bufferzone, RLP = restrictionon land parcelling,ES = expert studies, EP = educationalprograms, PCC = plannedcarrying capacity, RPA = restrictionon private actions, O = others. Impactof EEC regulations: P = positive, N = negative, I = indifferent, DK = don't know Local Planning, Cantabria,Spain 867 municipalities to further enhance the protection in Val de San Vicente, San Vicente de la Bar- of their natural coastal features above and beyond quera, Miengo and Santonia produce fish and the national 100 m zone. shellfish which are marketed nationally. Table 5 reveals that few of the municipalities The third portion of Table 6 deals with the have undertaken or know of studies that can be hypothetical question of what the municipalities used as a basis for protection of coastal features. would do if they were given a significant amount Those that have done the most studies have sig- of money (ca. $ 1 mil. U.S.) with no restrictions nificant parts of their coastal zones included in on how it was to be spent. Both a mix of coastal the Natural Park of Oyambre.However, Suances and non-coastalprojects were proposed.As shown, and Noja with high development pressures also most officials would spend the money on sewage have commissioned studies. Of the types of stud- treatment, even if they had to pay 50% of the iks noted, urban planning, environmentalimpact cost. This latter part of the hypothetical question assessment and geology are done the most often. was designed to test their willingness to pay for There is room for greateruse of studies to support their desired project. Of course, their answer de- coastal protection. pends in part on the fact that EEC regulations It appears that coastal protection needs are in- require the upgrading of the quality of coastal fluenced by the personal observationsof local of- waters. Coastal promenades and marinas were ficials, and by the requirements laid down by preferredby only two municipalities each, and no higher levels of government. Expert studies, as other project stands out among more than one noted above, are used by six of the municipalities, municipality. while the role of other sources of concern over Finally, Table 6 shows the kinds of planning coastal protection appears minimal. Not many powers desired by the municipalities. Technical municipalities consider different approaches to assistance and increased funding had the highest coastal protection. For example, only seven of the frequencyof responsebecause of the need for these municipalities saw expert studies as something areas to implement national requirements,as well they are willing to consider. The use of direct as to carry out their own projects. Reduction in development restrictions such as limiting parcel permit delays at regional and national levels also size and density are not viewed by many munic- were seen as important.One crucialissue for these ipalitiesas appropriatefor coastalprotection. Even coastal municipalities is the need to build infra- educational programs do not rate highly among structure to support a summer population that these municipalities. often vastly exceeds the permanent population. The role of the European Economic Commu- Table 7 shows that tourist-orientedprojects and nity (EEC) in setting regulations for environ- parks followed by upgradingand maintaining ag- mental protection was viewed favorably by nine riculturalareas were ranked highest by most mu- of the municipalities. However, half of them nicipalities. When asked about the kinds of de- claimed not to know or were indifferent to the velopment projects actually permitted over the impact of the EEC on environmentalprotection. previous year, most projects were housing and Clearly, if the financial implication of EEC reg- related urban infrastructure rather than open ulation were known in advance less indifference space protection projects. The lack of preferred or lack of knowledge could be expected (SETON, development projects funded may reflect the cur- 1993). rent economic recession in Spain. Only one de- Table 6 shows the municipal officials' prefer- velopment project in Noja was denied permission ences for new projects in their respective coastal to build. zones. Most wish to have new or enlarged sewage When asked about restricting development in treatment plants because of the water pollution the coastal zone, the concept of joint restrictions problemidentified earlier.Construction of coastal among adjacentmunicipalities received the great- promenades, greater parking capacity and mari- est support among local officials. The ability to nas reveal the increasing role of tourism in these undertake open space planning to restrict devel- areas. Specific environmental projects include not opment also was of interest. When the officials only sewage treatment but cliff top parks followed were asked about the degree of support for build- by a desire for wetland restoration. This latter is ing restrictions among their respective constitu- not surprising since aquaculture is a growing use encies, a mixed picture emerged. Some munici- of wetlands. For example, the protected wetlands palities would receive high political support from

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 Table 6. Municipal preferences for new coastal zone projects and planning measures.

of Kindsof desired 100 Municipalities Kinds desired If had millionpesetas/ Desiredplanning infrastructure environmentalprojects If hadto match50% powers WR T C c DST FP M ST CP DRl RES O R PkCPkTWP EP PT S Mm M CP O NL ITCIJP IF TARD O A Val de San Vicente R. dyn r s ot S. Vicente de la Barquera 00 Valddliga C-, Comillas 0 Ruiloba a Alfoz de Lloredo 0 Santillana Suances Miengo Pidlagos C- Sta. Cruz de Bezana 0 Santander C0 RibamontAn al Mar a Bareyo Arnuero NojaSantofla Laredo

CD Liendo Castro Urdiales 2 4 11106 4 3 2 2 1 Totalnumber 7 8 3 116216 10 1' 0 2 " 15 0 1 2 2 4 3 2 7 1121127 % 35 10 40115 80110130150120 55 50 30 20 15 5 10 10 0 5 10 0 75 0 5 10 10 20 15 10 3 0 35 0

El = coastal investment, U = interior investment, 0 = same project in both cases = C = Pk = = Needs of infrastructure: T transport infrastructure, communication infrastructure, parking, WD = waste disposal, ST sewage treatment, FP fishing port, = = = = = - = M marina, CP coastal promenade, 0 others. Kinds of desired environmental projects: ST sewage treatment, CP cliff parks, WR wetland restoration, DR = = = others. If had 100 million had to = = dune revegetation, RES remove engineering structures, 0 pesetas/If match 50%: R new roads to coast/beach, PkC new parking = = EP = erosion = = = lots on coast, PkT new parking lots in city, WP wetland protection, protection, PT new parks in city, ST sewage treatment plant, S new school, ======MM museum, M marina, CP = coastal promenade, 0 others. Desired planning powers: NL new laws, ITC increase tax capability, IPC increase power to = = = = decide, IF increased funding, TA = technical assistance, IJP increase jurisdictional power, RD reduce delays in permits, 0 others LocalPlanning, Cantabria, Spain 869

Table 7. Compatibility of developmentprojects and environmentalimpacts in the coastal zone.

Typeof compatible Development Changenecessary to Municipalities desired decisions restrict Degreeof development developmentpolitical suppor T M H P F FP o Granted Denied BZ TA JMPOS O Valde SanVicente 0 0 Low S. Vicentede la Barquera 0 0 Low Vaodliga 0 0 Low Comillas 6 0 Somewhathigh Ruiloba 0 0 Veryhigh Alfozde Lloredo 0 0 Veryhigh Santillana 0 0 Low Suances 0 0 Somewhathigh Miengo 6 ? Low Pidlagos 0 0 Don'tknow Sta.Cruz de Bezana 0 0 Veryhigh Santander 0 0 Somewhathigh RibamrnontAnal Mar 0 0 Low Bareyo 9 0 Low Aouero 0 0 Low Noja 4 1 Somewhathigh Santofla ? 0 Low Laredo 5 0 Veryhigh Liendo 0 0 Low CastroUrdiales 0 0 Veryhigh Totalnumber 16 7 9 106 5 2 11 6 2 % 80 35 45 75 50 30 15 25 10 55130 10

Type of compatible development desired: T = tourism, M = marina, H = housing, P = parks, F = farms, FP = fishing port, = O = others. Change necessary to restrict development: BZ = create setback/buffer zone, TA hire technical assistance, JMP = = = joint municipal projects, OSP open space plans, O others

constituents while others would not. However, Table 9 shows most municipalities do not use municipalities with high development pressure any measuresto avoid natural hazards,even when (Comillas, Suances, Bezana in the west and Noja, such hazardsmay be officiallyrecognized in plans. Laredo,Castro in the east) now appearto be mov- Engineeringstructures and land use plans are the ing toward higher support for development re- most frequently used measures. When respon- strictions. The municipalities of Ruiloba and Al- dents were asked which measures they might con- foz de Lloredo have such support simply because sider to avoid hazards only eleven were willing to very little demand exists for development since consider new measures. Out of these, Noja showed they have no beaches. interest in a range of possible hazard mitigation Coastal municipalities also face major hazards measures. Since it is also a municipality with a because of borderingthe sea and because of grow- rapid development profile, buffer zones and risk ing urbanizationand technological development. studies were viewed favorably. Table 8 lists those hazards which are noted offi- The possibility of sea level rise and its potential cially in municipalordinances, bylaws and general impacts on the municipalities is summarized in plans. Pollution is the overwhelmingconcern ex- Table 10. First, the respondentswere asked which pressed by respondents. This is followed by development projects each sought to promote slumping cliffs and floods. Five municipalities do within their coastal zones. As seen, most munic- not officially recognize hazards, and almost none ipalities opted for tourist oriented projects fol- have undertaken hazard studies. The only mu- lowed by housing, marinas and expanded fishing nicipality to have done a specific risk study in- harbors in traditional fishing ports. Since these volved water pollution since it is adjacent to a kinds of developments could be potentially sub- large bay with a shellfish aquaculture industry. ject to sea level rise, it was surprisingto find four

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 870 Fischer, Rivas and Cendrero

Table 8. Types of natural and technologicalhazards applicable to coastal municipalities.

Hazardsofficially recognized Hazardstudies undertaken Municipalities N SW F pBE ASSIREO N UP E V G RSEO Valde SanVicente S. Vicentede la Barquera ValdAliga Comillas Ruiloba Alfozde Lloredo Santillana Suances Miengo Pidlagos Sta.Cruz de Bezana Santander Ribamontdnal Mar

Bareyo"------Arnuero

Noja Santofla Laredo Liendo " CastroUrdiales 0 Totalnumber 530 5351024 0 00170 200 10 % 2515025 1525 5011012000 0 850 10 0 0 5 0 0

Hazardsofficially recognized: N = none, S = storms, W = winds, F = floods, WF = wildfires,SC = slumpingcliffs, P = pollution, BE = beach erosion, AS = accidentalspills, SLR = sea level rise, E = = explosions,O = others.Hazards studies undertaken: N = none,UP urbanplanning, E = engineering, V = vegetation,G = geological,R = riskstudies, SE = socioeconomic,O = others officials saying no effect was expected. Beach loss engineering devices. Only five respondents ex- and wetland flooding were the two most noted pressed a willingness to pay for any necessary impacts expected. Three respondents with sig- strategy. Clearly,these municipalities do not take nificant beachfront development did not know a proactive approach to the problem of sea level what impacts could be expected, even though it rise. is clear from the position of the developments that CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS housing and urban infrastructure would be af- fected. The results of this case study show that local Since sea level rise is not an immediate issue, officialstend to rely on personal observations,na- it is not surprising that most municipalities would tional requirements, and tourism for making de- wait the longest possible time before formulating cisions affecting their respective coastal zones. a moving plan for this hazard. When asked which Scientific information in the form of expert stud- basic strategy might be employed to deal with this ies has not played the role one would expect in a hazard, most preferred to have engineering struc- small province with available university re- tures as a means to protect the shoreline. Three sources. The views of these officials with respect municipalities were willing to restrict new devel- to the need for coastal protection and the coastal opment, and only two opted for abandoning the hazards to be avoided are at variance with sci- shoreline and moving inland. Since they are both entific studies of this same region. low-lying urbanized areas surrounded by wet- The survey also shows the need for a more lands, it is hard to see how this approach would proactive approach on the part of all the munic- work.Naturally, most of the municipalitieswant- ipalities for exploringways to protect and enhance ed some other source of funding to pay for the their coastal zones, as well as to educate their

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 Table 9. Type of measures used and willing to use to avoid hazards.

used to avoid hazards Measures to consider Municipalities-MunicipalitiesMeasures willing N RZ BAESRC I BC EP PS S EPLRU B ESBC RPIPRRPSBZ BNDR E ES EPUR H RI O Valde SanVicente S. Vicente de la Barquera------Valddliga -- Comillas Ruiloba Alfoz de Lloredo Santillana 0• Suances 0A Miengo a Pidlagos Sta.Cruz de Bezana Santander aD .v B'1 RibamontAnal Mar Bareyo CA Arnuero Noja Santofia _ Laredo Liendo CastroUrdiales Totalnumber 01200 3 4 1 3 2251 35011 ""152031010 " "1110T120 % 75 10 0 15 5 0 5 0 5 10 0 0 15 5 5 5 5 10 10 25 5 15 25 0 5 5 0 02022011510 Measuresused to avoid hazards:N = none, RZ = designationof risk zones, BA = ban activity, ES = engineeringstructures, RC = restrictionto 00 construction,I = requireinsurance, BC = buildingcode, EP = evacuationplan, PS = performancestandards, RS = risk studies, EP = educational program,LR = loss reimbursementby government,LUP = land use planning,BZ = bufferzone. Measureswilling to consider:ES = erosionsetback, BC = ban construction,RPI = restrict new public infrastructure,PR = paying for relocate, RI = remodel infrastructure,PSR = post-storm/flood restrictions,BZ = buffer zone, RPL = restrict privatizationof public land, BN = beach nourishment,DR = dune revegetation,DES = destroy engineeringstructures, BES = build engineeringstructures, ES = expert studies, EP = educationalprogram, LUP = land use planning,RS = risk studies, PHA = purchasehazard areas, RI = requireinsurance, O = others 00

Table 10. The expected actions by municipalities to sea level rise.

Municipalities Actions promotedin coastal zone Expected sea level rise to affect Years to react Strategy to combat Paying for strategy TFHHIHLI ValdeSanVicente MMn 0F N FLBNBFWSCLLHDK O PNCAS DS 0PSO NPORGMNGPGD EC S. Vicentede la Barquera ->20 4 .1-5 ND ComillasValdtliga 1-5 Ruiloba >20 Alfoz de Lloredo >20 Santillana >20 Suances 6-10 ga C- Miengo >20 Pidlagos >20 Sta.Cruz de Bezana Santander1-5 a al Mar >20 BareyoRibamontin >20 ,a., Arnuero >20 Co Noja 6-10 CO >20 Santofta ?.O 01 Liendo >20 CastroLaredo_Urdiales 1-5 164 Totalnumber 0 5 3 0 3 2 3A8•14 6 5 5 3 4 3 3 1 32 1 15 2 2 3 % 80 20 0 2515250 10 20 20 25 15 30 225 5 15 20 15 15 5 15 10 15 40 10 30 5 40 2575 10 1015 = = Actions promoted in coastal zone: T = tourism, FP fishing port, HI heavy industry, H = housing, LI = light industry, M = marina,Mn = mining, F = farming,O = others. Expected sea level rise to affect:N = no effect, F = floodingof inhabited/cultivatedareas, LB = loss of beaches,NB = narrowingof beaches,FW = floodingof wetlands,SC = slumping cliffs, LI = loss of infrastructure,LH = loss of housing,DK = don't know,O = others.Strategy to combat:PNC = prohibitnew construction,AS = abandonshoreline, RDS = redesign structures,EPS = engineeringprotection structures, O = others, N = nothing.Paying for strategy:PO = personalowners, RG = regionalgovernment, M = municipality,NG = national government,D = developers,PG = provincialgovernment, EEC = Europeaneconomic community LocalPlanning, Cantabria, Spain 873 residents on coastal assets and vulnerabilities. It LITERATURE CITED is clear that the coastal zone of a municipality is BROWER, D.; GODSCHALK,D., and PORTER,D., 1989. Un- an inherent part of the municipality itself and not derstanding GrowthManagement. Washington, D.C.: an addendum to be treated superficially. The Urban Land Institute. movement of to coastal BURTON, I.; KATES, R., and SNEED,R., 1969.The human population municipalities ecology of coastal flood hazards in megalopolis. De- is based on their coastal zones and not simply the partment of Geography, Research Paper No. 115. mere availability of buildable land. In the desire Chicago: University of Chicago Press. for more tourism projects,this facet appearsover- CENDRERO,A. (ED.), 1989.Special issue on land use plan- looked. ning and managementin the coastal zone. Ocean and Shoreline 365-586. The case of Cantabrian Management, 12, study municipalities CORTABITARTE, V., 1993. Los afectados por el Parque matched closely the case studies conducted in Natural de Oyambreapoyan las propuestas presen- California and Louisiana. Cantabria as well as tadas por Hormaechea. Alerta, May 10, p. 16. California and Louisiana municipalities desired DE GROVE,J., 1984. Land Growth and Politics. Chicago: American Association Press. clearerpolicies from the next highest level of gov- Planning DE GROVE,J., 1991.Balanced Growth:A Planning Guide ernment to assist them in coastal planning. As for Local Government. Washington, D.C.: Interna- well, few of these local governmentsfrom the three tional City ManagementAssociation. "states" had ordinancesdealing with natural haz- DE GROVE,J. and STROUD, N., 1988. New developments and all local noted their and future trends in local government comprehensive ards, nearly governments Stetson Law 573-605. lack of for the planning. Review, 17, regulatorymeasures mitigating ef- FISCHER,D. 1990. Public policy aspects of beach erosion fects of coastal hazards. control. American Journal of Economics and Soci- For greater scientific input into local govern- ology, 49, 185-197. ment decision-makingconcerning coastal protec- FISCHER, D., HENNINGSEN, D., et al., 1984. A Study of it would for a level Sandy Beach Management by Local Authorities, tion, appear necessary higher Florida. Tallahassee, Fla.: Division of Beaches and of government to require expert studies prior to Shores, Department of Natural Resources. new coastal development. Environmental impact FISCHER,D.; STONE, G.; MORGAN,J., and HENNINGSEN, assessment of municipal master plans is one av- D., 1986. Integrated multi-disciplinary information enue that could be et for coastal management, Florida. Journal of Coastal pursued (RIvAS al., 1993). 437-447. In the scientists could Research, 2, addition, regionaluniversity FRANCPS, E.; DIAZ DE TERAN, J.R.; CENDRERO, A.; hold forumsor short coursesfor local officialsfrom CASTIEN, E., and SAYAGO, J.M., 1990. A procedure for coastal municipalitiesabout the expected impacts environmental analysis and diagnosis of coastal areas of continuing development in their coastal zones. for planning natural park areas; application to the Jaizkibel Massif In: Finally, the national and regional governments (Guipi'zcoa, Basque Country). QUELENEC,R. E.; ENCOLINI,E., and MICHON,G. (eds.), can work to clarify the inter-governmentalroles Proceedings, International Symposium Littoral 90. in coastal zone decision-making and assist mu- Marseille:Association EUROCOAST,pp. 375-380. nicipalities to understand and integrate coastal FRANcts, E.; DIAZ DE TERAN, J.R.; CENDRERO,A.; G6vMEZ protection with their urban and infrastructure OREA, D; VILLARINO, T.; LEONARDO, J., and SAIZ, L., The mere existence of a cre- 1990a. Environmental mapping applied to the plan- planning. nationally ning of urban and natural park areas in the north ated 100 m zone does not ensure coastal protec- coast of Spain. Proceedings of the Sixth Interna- tion; rather, a proactive,integrated planning pro- tional Congress of the IAEG. Balkema, Rotterdam, cess involving all three levels of government is pp. 95-101. to the level of FRANCPtS, E.; DiAZ DE TERAN, J.R.; CENDRERO, A.; necessary implement protection LEONARDO,J., and SAIZ,L., 1990b. Criterios ambien- desired. It is expected that the case of Cantabria tales aplicados al plan de ordenaci6n urbana del mun- is not unlike that of other Spanish regions with icipio de Suances (Cantabria). Proceedings, IV Reu- burgeoningcoastal development pressures. Coastal nidn Nacional de Geologia Ambiental y Ordenacidn del Territorio. management in Cantabria means growth man- SEGAOT, Gij6n, pp. 203-213. and the FRANCES, E.; RIVAS, V.; DiAZ DE TERAN, J.R.; VIL- agement, growth management requires LALOBOS, M., and SERRANO,A., 1992. Ordenaci6n y requisite measures to assist local governments in restauraci6n de espacios naturales singulares en el this task. litoral cantibrico. Tecnoambiente, 15, 49-55. GALLARDO,D., 1993. Costas invertira mias de mil mi- llones en mejorar el litoral cantabro entre 1993 y 1997. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS El Diario Montaiids, April 18, p. 5. GRIGGS,G.; PEPPER,J., and JORDAN,M., 1992. Califor- Financial support for this research was provid- nia's Coastal Hazards: A Critical Assessment of Ex- ed by the DGICYT, Spain (Project SAB92-0238). isting Land Use Policies and Practices. Berkeley:

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995 874 Fischer,Rivas and Cendrero

Californiapolicy seminar report, University of Cali- ceedings, International Coastal Congress-ICC.Kiel: fornia at Berkeley. 264-273. LASKA,S. and EMMER,R., 1992. Resident and Public RIVAS,V. and CENDRERO,A., 1993. Human influence in OfficialPerceptions of the Effects of Coastal Erosion a low-hazard coastal area: An approach to risk as- and Sea Level Rise on Coastal Louisiana: The Bar- sessment and proposal of mitigation strategies. Jour- ataria Basin. New Orleans:The EnvironmentalSo- nal of Coastal Research. Special Issue No. 12, pp. cial Science Research Institute, University of New 289-298. Orleans. RIVAS,V.; FRANCflS,E., and CENDRERO,A., 1992. Use MANTELL, M.; HARPER,S., and PROPST,L., 1990. Cre- of geoenvironmental maps for the design of restora- ating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to tion plans in degraded areas. In: HERMELIN,M. (ed.), GrowthManagement Strategies. Washington, D.C.: Proceedings, II Colombian Conference of Environ- Island Press. mental Geology. Colombia: Pereira, pp. 343-355. MINISTRYOF PUBLICWORKS AND URBANISM. 1989. Ley RIVAS, V.; GONZALEZ, A.; FISCHER, D., and CENDRERO, de Costas/The Shores Act. Madrid: Ministry of Pub- A., 1994. An approach to the environmental assess- lic Works and Urbanism. ment of master plans: The northern Spanish expe- RIVAS,V. and CENDRERO,A., 1991. Use of natural and rience. Journal of Environmental Planning and artificial accretion on the North Coast of Spain; his- Management, 37(3), 305-322. torical trends and assessment of some environmental SETON, C., 1993. Coming clean on the waterfront: The and economic consequences. Journal of Coastal Re- EC order a clean up of West Country beaches but it search, 7(2), 491-507. won't pay. The Daily Telegraph, March 4, p. 28. RIVAS,V. and CENDRERO,A., 1992. Determination of the SUAREZ DE VIVERO, J.L., 1992. The Spanish shores act evolutionarycondition of coastal cliffs on the basis of and its implicationsfor regionalcoastal management. geological and geomorphological parameters. Pro- Ocean and Coastal Management, 18, 307-317.

Journalof Coastal Research,Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995