AO1 (5 marks)/AO2 (15 marks)

Marking instructions
Markers must apply the descriptors in line with the general marking guidance and the qualities outlined in the levels-based mark scheme below. Responses that demonstrate only AO1 without any AO2 should be awarded
marks as follows:

Level 1 AO1 performance: 1 mark
Level 2 AO1 performance: 2 marks
Level 3 AO1 performance: 3 marks.
Level 4 AO1 performance: 4–5 marks.

Indicative content guidance
The indicative content below is not prescriptive and candidates are not required to include all of it. Other relevant material not suggested below must also be credited. Relevant points may include:

AO1

Hard engineering approaches (groynes, sea walls, rip rap, revetments, offshore breakwaters) are economically costly and directly alter physical processes and systems.
Soft engineering approaches (beach nourishment, cliff re-grading and drainage, dune stabilisation) attempt to work with physical systems and processes to protect coasts and manage changes in sea level.
Sustainable management is designed to cope with future threats (increased storm events, rising sea levels) but its implementation can lead to local conflicts in many countries.
Policy decisions can lead to conflicts between different players (homeowners, local authorities, environmental pressure groups) with perceived winners and losers in countries at different levels of
development (developed and developing or emerging countries)

AO2

Hard engineering approaches such as groynes (both wooden and rock) have a major impact on sediment transport as they stop longshore drift and so develop a large beach helping to protect sea walls from
basal scour. This therefore reduces coastal recession and so protects valuable infrastructure (hotels, cafes and houses) producing ‘winners’ such as those at Swanage where the combination of groynes and sea
walls have led to the development of considerable touristic infrastructure.
Importantly, a larger beach also protects backshore habitats and so increases biodiversity causing environmental pressure groups to be considered as ‘winners’.
Yet groynes can starve areas downstream of sediment through terminal groyne syndrome and so increase coastal recession causing ‘losers’ such as on the southern section of the Holderness coast.
Furthermore, groynes can also limit access to the beach to some disabled stakeholders and so causes further ‘losers’.
Recurved sea walls gives the highest level of protection for people from coastal erosion and flooding and are long lasting and so protect residential and business property in the area creating job opportunities such as the sea walls protecting the coastal frontage at Sandown on the Isle of Wight and so creating a series of different stakeholders who could be considered as ‘winners’.
However, sea walls have a high cost and local authorities can therefore be considered ‘losers’.
Furthermore as they reduce erosion sea walls interfere with the sediment cell and can starve areas down stream of beach material leading to higher erosion rates and so loss of properties creating further ‘losers’.
In addition, some stakeholders perceive sea walls as unsightly causing more ‘losers’. Crucially, sea walls also destroy backshore habitats as well as interfering with sand dune succession leading to loss of valuable dune ecosystem causing environmental pressure groups to be perceived ‘losers’.
Offshore breakwaters can be as low as £1,000 per metre making them a relatively cheap form of coastal protection and local authorities can consider themselves as ‘winners’. Crucially they reduce wave energy and so reduces erosion risk and so safeguards properties causing positive feedback from many stakeholders (winners) whose properties
are protected.
Furthermore, offshore breakwaters increase the potential for rocky offshore habitat through colonisation by limpets/seaweed and even cold water corals causing environmental pressure groups to be perceived ‘winners’.
Yet they are often perceived as dangerous to children and so reduces `bucket and spade’ tourism causing negative multiplier effects for some stakeholders leading to some stakeholders considering themselves to ‘losers’.
Other approaches such as soft engineering (such as beach nourishment, cliff re-grading and drainage, dune stabilization) are therefore often used where there are more perceived losers than winners caused by hard engineering or where cost benefit analysis shows that hard engineering would be too costly for the value of the land that was being protected.
Sustainable approaches (such as managed realignment) are also being increasingly used to cope with future threats but has led to many conflicts in implementing such strategies where some stakeholders perceive themselves as ‘losers’.
Overall, it may appear that as a result of the greater number of losers than winners in some locations, hard engineering has been changed to soft engineering or sustainable management. Yet where hard engineering has been selected, particularly on the basis of positive CBA, it is often the case that there are more winners than losers.
Accept other evaluations of other recognised hard engineering approaches.

Coastal Management (Edexcel A Level Geography)

Topic Questions