Advertisement

Structures That Protect Coastal Populations, Assets, and GDPs: Sea Dikes, Breakwaters, Seawalls

  • Frederic R. Siegel
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)

Abstract

In 2018, about one billion people of the Earth’s 7.6 billion lived in marine coastal zones. The people, their property, and the infrastructure that supports them, and a city or national per capita GDP are at risk at multiple levels. These include coastal erosion, high and spring tides that cause lowland flooding, weather-related events (storm surges, flooding, wind, crop loss, unprotected anchorage, stabilization of navigation channels, and rarely, killer tsunamis). These coastal zones now, and more so in the future, are likely to be at high risk because of global warming-driven sea level rise. Human activity inshore can increase the level of risk from the above cited sources, such as flooding by abetting subsidence because of overuse of coastal aquifers for a water supply. Dikes, breakwaters, sea walls, and related structures are designed to thwart for some time (50 years?) damaging, destructive forces that assault coastal regions worldwide. They are costly to build and maintain but in short and long terms present economic benefits that preserve much, much more in capital investment.

Keywords

Sea level rise Hard defenses Sea dikes Breakwaters Sea walls Surge barriers Adaptation to change Cost factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Linham MM, Nicholls RJ (2011) Sea dikes. ClimateTechWiki. www.climatetechwiki.org/content/sea-dikes (scroll down for text)
  2. 2.
    Lenk S, Rynski D, Heidrich O, Dawson RJ, Kropp JP (2017) Costs of sea dikes—regressions and uncertainty estimates. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 17:765–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mughal A (2018) Personal communication from Chief Technology OfficerGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breteler MK (2016) Study of a new type dike revetment. www.deltares.nl/en/news/study-of-new-type-revetment
  5. 5.
    Hillblock the new standard in coastal protection. https://www.hillblock.com/site/en/nieuws/detail/20070051.html
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007) The rock manual. The use of rocks in hydraulic engineering, 2nd edn, C683, CIRIA, London, 1255 p. Contains design of marine structures, pp 773–908. Rubble mound breakwaters, pp 778–823. Rock protection to port structures, pp 823–835Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li H, Sanchez A, Wu W, Reed C (2013) Implementation of structures in the CMS (Coastal Modeling System). Tech Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-93. US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, 9 pGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Graauw A (2014) A long term failure of rubble mound breakwaters. J Mediterr Geogr. http://journals.openedition.org/mediterranean/7078
  10. 10.
    Jackson JL, Harley MD, Armaroli C, Nordstrom KF (2015) Beach morphologies induced by breakwaters with different orientations. Geomorphology 239:48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montanari A (2017) Lecture: design of breakwaters. Online Search: Montanari, Design of breakwaters. www.albertomontanari.it
  12. 12.
    Sciortino JA (2010) Fishing, harbour planning, construction and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 539, Rome, 337 p. https://fao.org/decrep/013/1883e/1883e09.pdf, Chapter 7. Breakwaters, pp 87–196. Chapter 9. Construction materials, pp 133–179 (especially, pp 175–177, rocks)
  13. 13.
    Adams S. The pros and cons of breakwaters. www.hunker.com/134255855/pros-cons-of-breakwaters
  14. 14.
    Ruoi P (2017) Floating breakwaters. www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Floating_breakwaters
  15. 15.
    Takagi H, Kashihara H, Esteban M, Shibayama T (2011) Assessment of future stability of breakwaters under climate change. Coastal Eng J 53:21–39.  https://doi.org/10.1142/50578563411002264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorenzoni C, Postacchini M, Brocchini M, Mancinelli A (2016) Experimental study of the short-term efficiency of different breakwater configurations on beach protection. J Ocean Eng Marine Energy 2:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linham MM, Nicholls RJ (2010) Technologies for climate change adaptation: coastal erosion and flooding. TNA Guidebook Series. UNEP/GEF, Roskilde, Denmark, 150 p. http://tech-action.org/
  18. 18.
    Jacobs S (2018) Business Insider. A series of comments on Japan’s investment on constructing extensive seawalls after the 2011 Fukushima tsunami caused disaster. http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-seawalls-cost-12
  19. 19.
    Garfield L (2018) Manhattan plans to build a massive $1 billion wall and park to guard against the next inevitable superstorm. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/manhattan-plans-to-build
  20. 20.
    Bender E (2017) With storms intensifying and oceans on the rise, Boston weighs strategies for staying dry. Spirit of Change Magazine, Nov. 27Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW and Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (2009) Environmentally friendly seawalls: a guide to improving the environmental value of seawalls and seawall-lined foreshores in estuaries. Sydney, Australia, 27 pGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nateghi R, Bricker JD, Gulkema SD, Bessho A (2016) Statistical analysis of the effectiveness of seawalls and coastal forests in mitigating tsunami impacts in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. PLoS One 11(8):e0158375.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abozaid AAEM (2014) Using porous seawalls to protect the coasts against sea level rise due to climate changes. M.S. Thesis, ZagaZig University, Egypt, 130 pGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang Y, Hu X, Li Z (2015) The conditional risk probability-based seawall height design method. Int J Naval Architect Ocean Eng 7:1007–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnaoe-2015-0070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Climate change 2014. Synthesis report. IPCC, Geneva, 151 pGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeConto RM, Pollard D (2016) Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea level rise. Nature 531:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kraus NU, McDougal WU (1996) Effects of seawalls on the beach. Part A. An updated literature review. J Coastal Res 123:691–701Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sheth A, Sanyal S, Jaisual A, Gandhi P (2006) Effects of the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on the Indian mainland. Earthquake Spectra 22:S435–S473. Earthquake Engineering Research InstituteCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gittman RK, Scyphers SB, Smith CS, Neylan IP, Grabowski JH (2016) Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. Bioscience 66:763–773.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ma Z, Melville DS, Liu J, Chen Y, Yang H, Ren W, Zhang Z, Piersma T, Li B (2014) Rethinking China’s new great wall. Science 346:912–914.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi C-Y, Jackson MV, Gallo-Cajiao E, Murray NJ, Clemens RS, Gan X, Fuller RA (2017) Biodiversity and China’s new great wall. Diversity and distributions. Wiley Online Library. Unpaginated  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhu S, Chwang AT (2001) Investigations on the reflection behavior of a slotted seawall. Coastal Eng 43:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koraim AS, Heikal EM, Zaid AM (2014) Hydrodynamic characteristics of porous seawall protected by submerged breakwater. Appl Ocean Res 46:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karim MF, Tanimoto K, Hieu PD (2009) Modelling and simulation of wave transformation in porous structures using VOF based two-phase flow model. Appl Math Model 33:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nassar K, Negm A (2016) Predictive formulae for estimating of wave hydrodynamic parameters in front of sea walls. In: 19th international water technology conference, IWTC19, Sharm ElSheikhGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jackson MD, Mulcahy SR, Chen H, Li Y, Li Q, Cappelletti P, Wenk HR (2017) Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite mineral cements produced through low-temperature water-rock reactions in Roman marine concrete. Am Mineral Suppl 102:1435–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ABB Communications (2012) Protecting the Netherlands from storm surges and flooding. Discussion of the Maeslant Barrier Rotterdam. www.abb.com/seitp202/238f468a52449bb3c12579aa00452
  38. 38.
    Hunter P (2012) The St. Petersburg flood protection barrier: design and construction. Presented at the CET MEF PIANC, Paris, 9 p. https://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/603/1/HRPP569_The_St_Petersburg_Flood_Protection_Barrier
  39. 39.
    Environmental Agency, UK (2014) Updated 2018. The Thames Barrier. www.gov.uk/guidance/the-thames-barrier (includes video)

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederic R. Siegel
    • 1
  1. 1.George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations