Advertisement

Seawalls and Signage: How Beach Access Management Affects Rip Current Safety

  • Sarah TrimbleEmail author
  • Chris Houser
Chapter
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 24)

Abstract

Rip currents are concentrated flows of water flowing out to sea faster than the surrounding waves. These currents form as a result of alongshore variations in wave set-up driven by variable nearshore morphology or hard structures that interrupt the longshore current. Recent research from the United States, Costa Rica, Australia, and the United Kingdom suggests that the beach going public is mostly unaware of how to identify, avoid, and escape rip currents. As a result, hundreds of rip current related deaths occur worldwide each year, making rip currents a global health hazard. While an increasing number of programs are created in coastal countries, many aimed at increasing public awareness and education, signage, or improving lifeguard programs, there is increasing evidence that existing warning systems and signage are ineffective because beach users are unable to translate the warning into a real-world feature. Further evidence suggests that beach access management can inadvertently steer unsuspecting beach users towards rip-prone areas, increasing the chances of a drowning occurring on that beach. For example, alongshore variations in the offshore bathymetry at Pensacola Beach, Florida responsible for semi-permanent rip-prone sections of the beach are also responsible for the development of relatively small dunes in the backshore. Beach access points were preferentially built in the areas with smaller dunes, thereby focusing beach-users towards the most rip-prone sections of the beach. In another example from Jaco Beach, Costa Rica, public beach access points are adjacent to stream outlets that are responsible for creating a nearshore terrace and rip morphology, and are focusing beach users’ access and activity towards rip-prone sections of the beach. In contrast, the evenly spaced beach access ramps from the seawall down to the sand of Australia’s famous Bondi Beach in Sydney do not focus beach-users and activity towards rip-prone sections of the beach. However, the placement of a popular bus stop and hostels invite the most vulnerable and unaware beach users swimmers towards the southern end of the beach with a large semi-permanent rip current called the “Backpacker’s Express.” Through these examples, we conclude that when developers do not consider beach and nearshore geomorphology in their designs for beach access management, they may lead unsuspecting and unaware beach users towards the rip hazard and increase the potential for drownings.

Keywords

Rip current Health Drowning Beach safety 

References

  1. Angelou Economics (2008) Galveston Island: tourism economic impact analysis (unpublished report)Google Scholar
  2. Arozarena I, Houser C, Echeverria AG, Brannstrom C (2015) The rip current hazard in Costa Rica. Nat Hazards 77(2):753–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arun Kumar SVV, Prasad KVSR (2014) Rip current-related fatalities in India: a new predictive risk scale for forecasting rip currents. Nat Hazards 70:313–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley WS, Black AW (2008) Fatalities associated with nonconvective high-wind events in the United States. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47(2):717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes PH (2002) Approaches to community safety: risk perception and social meaning. Aust J Emer Manag 1(1):15–23Google Scholar
  6. Barrett G, Houser C (2012) Identifying hot spots of rip current activity using wavelet analysis at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Phys Geogr 33:32–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen AJ (1969) Rip currents: 1. Theoretical investigations. J Geophys Res 74(23):5467–5478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branche CM, Stewart S (eds) (2001) Lifeguard effectiveness: a report of the working group. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  9. Brander RW (1999) Field observations on the morphodynamic evolution of a low-energy rip current system. Mar Geol 157(3):199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brander RW, Short AD (2000) Morphodynamics of a large-scale rip current system at Muriwai Beach, New Zealand. Mar Geol 165(1):27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brander RW, Short AD (2001) Flow kinematics of low-energy rip current systems. J Coast Res 17(2):468–481Google Scholar
  12. Brander R, Dominey-Howes D, Champion C et al (2013) Brief communication: a new perspective on the Australian rip current hazard. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(6):1687–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brannstrom C, Trimble S, Santos A et al (2014) Beach user ability to identify a rip current and hazardous surf conditions. Nat Hazards 72:1123–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brannstrom C, Houser C, Lee H et al (2015) “you can’t see them from sitting here:” evaluating beach user understanding of a rip current warning sign. Appl Geogr 56:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brighton B, Sherker S, Brander R et al (2013) Rip current related drowning deaths and rescues in Australia 2004–2011. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(4):1069–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brilly M, Polic M (2005) Public perception of flood risks, flood forecasting and mitigation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(3):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Caldwell N, Houser C, Meyer-Arendt K (2013) Ability of beach users to identify rip currents at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Nat Hazards 68:1041–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carey W, Rogers S (2005) Rip currents: coordinating coastal research, outreach and forecast methodologies to improve public safety. In: Wallendorf L, Ewing L, Rogers S et al (eds) ASCE: solutions to coastal disasters. Charleston, South Carolina, pp 285–296Google Scholar
  19. Davidson-Arnott R (2010) Introduction to coastal processes and geomorphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Drozdzewski D, Shaw W, Dominey-Howes D et al (2012) Surveying rip current survivors: preliminary insights into the experiences of being caught in rip currents. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(4):1201–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Espluga J, Gamero N, Prades A et al (2009) El papel de la confianza en los conflictos socio ambientales. Política y sociedad 46/1(2):225–273Google Scholar
  22. Fédération Internationale de Natation (August 3 2016) 50 m–pool World RecordsGoogle Scholar
  23. Gensini VA, Ashley WS (2010) An examination of rip current fatalities in the United States. Nat Hazards 54(1):159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green CH, Tunstall SM, Fordham MH (1991) The risks from flooding: which risks and whose perception? Disasters 15(3):227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall TE, Slothower M (2009) Cognitive factors affecting homeowners’ reactions to defensible space in the Oregon coast range. Soc Nat Resour 22(2):95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatfield J, Williamson A, Sherker S et al (2012) Development and evaluation of an intervention to reduce rip current related beach drowning. Accid Anal Prev 46:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heitz C, Spaeter S, Auzet AV et al (2009) Local stakeholders’ perception of muddy flood risk and implications for management approaches: a case study in Alsace (France). Land Use Policy 26(2):443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Houser C (2009) Geomorphological controls on road damage during Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis. J Coast Res 558–568Google Scholar
  30. Houser C (2012) Feedback between ridge and swale bathymetry and barrier island storm response and transgression. Geomorphology 173(174):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Houser C, Barrett G (2010) Divergent behavior of the swash zone in response to different foreshore slopes and nearshore states. Mar Geol 271:106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Houser C, Hamilton S (2009) Sensitivity of post-hurricane beach and dune recovery to event frequency. Earth Surf Process Landf 34:613–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Houser C, Hapke C, Hamilton S (2008) Controls on coastal dune morphology, shoreline erosion and Barrier Island response to extreme storms. Geomorphology 100:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houser C, Barrett G, Labude D (2011) Alongshore variation in the rip current hazard at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Nat Hazards 57:501–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Houser C, Arnott R, Ulzhöfer S et al (2013) Nearshore circulation over transverse bar and rip morphology with oblique wave forcing. Earth Surf Process Landf 38:1269–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Houser C, Murphy T, Labude D (2015) Alongshore correspondence of beach users and rip channels at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Nat Hazards 78:2175–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huntley DA, Short AD (1992) On the spacing between observed rip currents. Coast Eng 17(3):211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. International Life Saving Federation (2004) International Standards. Beach Safety and Information Flags. Headquarters for World Water Safety, Gemeenteplein 26, 3010 Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  39. International Visitors Survey (YE June 2009 to YE June 2014) and National Visitors Survey (YE June 2009 to YE June 2014) Tourism Research AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  40. Jóhannesdóttir G, Gísladóttir G (2010) People living under threat of volcanic hazard in southern Iceland: vulnerability and risk perception. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(2):407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaiser G, Witzki D (2004) Public perception of coastal flood defence and participation in coastal flood defence planning. In: Schernewski G, Dolch T (eds) Geographie der Meere und Küsten Coastline, pp 101–108. ISSN 0928-2734 SGoogle Scholar
  42. Karanci AN, Aksit B, Dirik G (2005) Impact of a community disaster awareness training program in Turkey: does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors? Soc Behav Personal Int J 33(3):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kates RW (1962) Hazard and choice perception in flood plain management. Illinois, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  44. Lapinski M, Viken G (2014) Great Lakes swim safety risk communication for 18–24 year-old males: review of key literature and results of a focus group study final report. Michigan State University. Michigan. http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/02/14-207-Lapinski-Viken_RiskReport_July-2014.pdf
  45. LeDoux J (1996) Emotional networks and motor control: a fearful view. Prog Brain Res 107:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lushine JB (1991) A study of rip current drownings and related weather factors. In: National Weather Digest. National Weather Service Forecast Office, Miami, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  47. MacMahan JH, Reniers AJ, Thornton EB et al (2004) Infragravity rip current pulsations. J Geophys R Oceans 109(C1)Google Scholar
  48. MacMahan JH, Thornton EB, Stanton TP et al (2005) RIPEX: observations of a rip current system. Mar Geol 218(1):113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacMahan JH, Thornton EB, Reniers AJ (2006) Rip current review. Coast Eng 53(2):191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacMahan JH, Brown J, Thornton E et al (2010) Mean Lagrangian flow behavior on an open coast rip-channeled beach: a new perspective. Mar Geol 268(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mael F, Seck M, Russell D (1999) A work behavior-oriented job analysis for lifeguards (final technical report). American Institutes for Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Matthews B, Andronaco R, Adams A (2014) Warning signs at beaches: do they work? Saf Sci 62:312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCarroll RJ, Brander RW, MacMahan JH et al (2013) Assessing the effectiveness of rip current swimmer escape strategies, Shelly Beach, NSW, Australia. J Coast Res 1(65(sp1)):784–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCarroll RJ, Brander RW, MacMahan JH et al (2014) Evaluation of swimmer-based rip current escape strategies. Nat Hazards 71:1821–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCarroll RJ, Castelle B, Brander RW et al (2015) Modelling rip current flow and bather escape strategies across a transverse bar and rip channel morphology. Geomorphology 246:502–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKay C, Brander RW, Goff J (2014) Putting tourists in harms way – coastal tourist parks and hazardous unpatrolled surf beaches in new South Wales, Australia. Tourism Mgmt 45:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy. J Environ Psychol 28(2):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mileti D, O’Brien P (1993) Public response to aftershock warnings. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1553:31–42Google Scholar
  59. Mollen S, Rimal RN, Ruiter RA et al (2013) Healthy and unhealthy social norms and food selection: findings from a field-experiment. Appetite 65:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) (2015) “The NOAA coastal hazards resilience workshop: rip currents and wave runup. Virginia Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Center, Suffolk, 14–16 April 2015Google Scholar
  61. Nielsen-Gammon J (2001) Initial modeling of the August 2000 Houston-Galveston ozone episode. Report to the Technical Analysis Division, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 19 December 2001Google Scholar
  62. Morgan D, Ozanne-Smith J, Triggs T (2009) Self-reported water and drowning risk exposure at surf beaches. Aust NZealand J Pub Health 33(2):180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. National Museum of Australia (last modified 30 June 2015) The birth of surf lifesaving. In between the flags: 100 years of surf lifesaving. Accessed 19 October 2016. http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/between_the_flags/the_birth_of_surf_lifesaving
  64. Nesbitt R, Ross L (1980) Human inference. Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  65. Njome MS, Suh CE, Chuyong G et al (2010) Volcanic risk perception in rural communities along the slopes of mount Cameroon, west-Central Africa. J Afr Earth Sci 58(4):608–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rice H (2012a) Huge holiday crowds cause traffic headaches in Galveston. Houston Chronicle, 29 MayGoogle Scholar
  67. Rice H (2012b) Crowds spell strong finish to Galveston’s tourist season. Houston Chronicle, 4 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  68. Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Borga M (2012) The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: findings from case studies in an alpine region. Nat Hazards 63(2):499–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shepard F, Emery K, La Fond E (1941) Rip currents: a process of geological importance. J Geol 49(4):337–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shepard FP, Inman DL (1950) Nearshore water circulation related to bottom topography and wave refraction. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 31(2):196–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sherker S, Williamson A, Hatfield J et al (2010) Beachgoers’ beliefs and behaviours in relation to beach flags and rip currents. Accid Anal Prev 42(6):1785–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Short AD (1985) Rip-current type, spacing and persistence, Narrabeen Beach, Australia. Mar Geol 65(1–2):47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Short AD (2007) Australian rip systems – friend or foe? J Coastal R 50:7–11Google Scholar
  74. Short AD, Hogan CL (1994) Rip currents and beach hazards: their impact on public safety and implications for coastal management. J Coastal R:197–209Google Scholar
  75. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: a comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Anal 26(4):971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sonu CJ (1972) Field observation of nearshore circulation and meandering currents. J Geophys R 77(18):3232–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Terpstra T (2011) Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Anal 31(10):1658–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Terpstra T, Lindell MK, Gutteling JM (2009) Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study. Risk Anal 29(8):1141–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Trimble S, Houser C, Brander R (2017) An evaluation of beach user knowledge and chosen swimming location within Bondi Beach. New South Wales, Australia. (in review)Google Scholar
  81. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psych 5(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. United States Lifesaving Association (2015) 2015 Annual Report. Published online 31 December 2015. http://www.usla.org/?page=ANNUALREPORTS
  83. Williamson A, Hatfield J, Sherker S et al (2012) A comparison of attitudes and knowledge of beach safety in Australia for beachgoers, rural residents and international tourists. Australian NZ J Pub Health 36(4):385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Woodward E, Beaumont E, Russell P et al (2013) Analysis of rip current incidents and victim demographics in the UK. J Coastal R 1(65(sp1)):850–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Woodward E, Beaumont E, Russell P, MacLeod R (2015) Public understanding and knowledge of rip currents and beach safety in the UK. Int J Aquat Res Educ 9(1):6Google Scholar
  86. World Health Organization (2014) Global report on drowning: preventing a leading killer. ISBN 978 92 4 156478 6 (NLM classification: WA 292)Google Scholar
  87. Wright LD, Short AD (1984) Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and beaches: a synthesis. Mar Geol 56(1–4)Google Scholar
  88. Wright LD, Chappell J, Thom BG et al (1979) Morphodynamics of reflective and dissipative beach and inshore systems: southeastern Australia. Mar Geol 32(1–2):105–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations