Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 567–574 | Cite as

Educating citizens about their coastal environments: beach profiling in the Coastwatch project

  • Maria Adelaide Ferreira
  • Lurdes Soares
  • Francisco Andrade


The Coastwatch (CW) project is aimed at monitoring the coastline with the involvement of volunteers. Between 2003 and 2007 a beach profiling method was informally proposed to CW participants in Portugal as an extra activity to include in the surveys. Beach profiling contributes to a better understanding of coastal processes by providing quantitative information on the spatial/temporal evolution of beaches, which is crucial for coastal management. The profiling method proposed to the CW project is based on the physical principle of communicating vessels, and only requires a simple and inexpensive homemade “profiler”. The simplicity of putting together and using the profiler, added to the arithmetic straightforwardness of data analysis, makes this method adequate for several kinds of users and for most levels of education. Eight workshops were held that included a classroom explanation of the method, the construction of a profiler, the actual profiling of a beach, and a final classroom session of data processing and graphing. About 140 participants received such training, and several among them independently undertook beach profiling. Surveyed participants found the workshop and the beach profiling method interesting and useful, and considered it a valuable tool for teaching and for management. External stakeholders (coastal managers) highlighted the importance of beach profiling data for management decisions and considered that this method produces robust data, even when carried out by volunteers. Further advantages of the application of the method, in the context of coastal management initiatives, for scientists, managers, and volunteers are discussed.


Community-based monitoring Beach dynamics Environmental education Beach profiling Citizen science Volunteers 



The authors are grateful to the volunteers that participated in the workshops, to those that independently undertook beach profiling, and to the workshop participants and coastal managers that kindly participated in our survey. We are also grateful to Dr. Lynne Hinkey for her many valuable inputs, to Tanya Silveira, and Dr. Jackson Blanton for critically reviewing the manuscript, and also to two anonymous referees, whose comments helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.


  1. Andrade C (1997) Dynamics, Erosion and Conservation of Beach Areas. Commissariat of the Lisbon World Exposition 1998, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade F, Ferreira MA (2006) A simple method of measuring beach profiles. Journal of Coastal Research 22:995–999. doi: 10.2112/04-0387.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade F, Cabral H, Borges M (2009) Ambientes Costeiros. In: Pereira H, Domingos T, Vicente L, Proença V (eds) Ecossistemas e bem-estar humano. Avaliação para Portugal do Millenium Ecossystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisboa, pp 413–435Google Scholar
  4. Bierbaum R, Cohen J, Collins L, Dunning B (2003) Bridging the gap between science and society: The relationship between policy and Research. Rice University, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy; Los Alamos National Laboratory; National Science Foundation, Houston TexasGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter RWG (1991) Coastal environments: An introduction to the physical, ecological and cultural systems of coastlines. Academic Press, London, 617Google Scholar
  6. Cooper NJ, Leggett DJ, Lowe JP (2000) Beach-profile measurement, theory and analysis: practical guidance and applied case studies. Water and Environmental Journal 14(2):79–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2000.tb00231.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paurelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, Van de Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuthill M (2000) An interpretive approach to developing volunteer-based coastal monitoring programmes. Local Environment 5(2):127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danielsen F, Jensen A, Alviola P, Balete D, Mendoza M, Tagtag A, Custodio C, Enghoff M (2005) Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected areas. Biodiversity and conservation 14:2633–2652. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-8392-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delaney D, Sperling C, Adams C, Leung B (2008) Marine Invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions 10:117–128. doi: 10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dornbusch U (2010) Ground survey methods for mixed sand and gravel beaches in intertidal environments: a comparison. Journal of Coastal Research 26(3):451–464. doi: 10.2112/08-1134.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery KO (1961) A simple method of measuring beach profiles. Limnology and Oceanography 6:90–93. doi: 10.4319/lo.1961.6.1.0090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hart D (1994) Authentic Assessment: a handbook for educators. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill H, Kelley J, Dickson S (2002) Co-measurement of beaches in Maine, USA: volunteer profiling of beaches and annual meetings. Journal of Coastal Research SI 36:374–380Google Scholar
  15. Kraus N (2005) Beach Profile. In: Schwartz M (ed) Encyclopedia of coastal science. (Vol. 24 of the Encyclopedia of Earth Science Series) Springer, pp 169–172Google Scholar
  16. Lovell S, Hamer M, Slotow R, Herber D (2009) An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys. Biodivers and Conservation 18:3295–3307. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9642-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGlothin CW (2009) Assessment of student learning: direct and indirect methods that work. Journal of SH&E Research 6(1). 5 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Pond K, Rees G (2000) Coastwatch UK—a public participation survey. Journal of Coastal Conservation 6:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogoff B, Paradise R, Arauz R, Correa-Chávez M, Angelillo C (2003) Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology 54:175–203. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soares L (2007) A insustentável inércia do cidadão—a (não) participação pública como contributo para a preservação do litoral. Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa. Masters thesisGoogle Scholar
  21. Veloso Gomes F (2007) A Gestão da Zona Costeira Portuguesa. Revista da Gestão Costeira Integrada 7(2):83–95Google Scholar
  22. Westat JF (2002) The 2002 User Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, National Science Foundation. 84 pGoogle Scholar
  23. Wholey J, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE (eds) (2004) Handbook of practical program evaluation. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams A, Micallef A (2009) Beach Management: Principles & Practice. Earthscan, UK. 445 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Adelaide Ferreira
    • 1
  • Lurdes Soares
    • 2
  • Francisco Andrade
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto do Mar, Laboratório Marítimo da GuiaCascaisPortugal
  2. 2.Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa–Centro de Oceanografia, Laboratório Marítimo da GuiaCascaisPortugal

Personalised recommendations