1 Introduction
Sprawling between the high-tide water mark toward land, and up to 200 m isobaths toward the ocean, and accounting for about 18% of Earth's surface and 25% of primary global productivity, coastal zones are environmentally sensitive ecological niches. These zones constitute a mere 5% of the total landmass, but sustain three-quarters of the world's population (among which almost half is urban!) and yield more than half of the global gross domestic product (Vorosmarty et al., 2009). Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the potential economic value of transitional coastal zones to be more than USD 22,000 ha− 1 yaer− 1. Notwithstanding this productivity and proliferation, about 4.6% of the world population is living under the threat of potential loss of about 9.3% of the global gross domestic product (Hinkel et al., 2014) by coastal flooding due to the rising sea level. These simple statistics exemplify the importance and perils of coastal zones. The stakes are rising as the population growth and economic pressure in the coastal zones continue to increase (Brommer and Bochev-van der Burgh, 2009).
Coastal regions and populations are exposed to pressures and hazards from both land and sea, making the coastal zones the most transformed and imperilled social-ecological systems on Earth, characterized by pervasive, unsustainable practices (Cummins et al., 2014). In addition, these zones are under the influence of ever-changing sea levels, waves, tides, and currents; in addition to their inherent susceptibility to the dynamics of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere, making them complex systems. This complexity poses difficulty in managing coastal regions for sustainable development. The stakes are higher because of the dense population of infrastructure, industry, and human settlements along the coasts (Douvere, 2008; Diedrich et al., 2010). In this regard, “sustainability” of management practice, that is, a balanced approach to the management (sensuMcKenna et al., 2008) of social, economic, and environmental issues concerned with coastal zones becomes tenuous, and demands a diverse approach, suitable for tackling local issues, and operating under the regional processes of litho, hydro, bio, and atmospheric interactions. The approach also needs to be constrained under the global-scale changing climate, including rising sea levels, which are increasing anthropogenic pressure and resultant feedback of coastal zones. In short, it necessitates sustainable management of the region. Cicin-Sain and Belfiore (2005) defined the sustainable management of coastal zones as “a dynamic process for the sustainable management and use of coastal zones, taking into account, at the same time, the fragility of coastal ecosystems and landscapes, the diversity of activities and uses, their interactions, the maritime orientation of certain activities and uses, and their impact on both the marine and land part.” This definition provides for integrated coastal management as a continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal zones. The process involves collaboration and co-ordination of different sectors of society, including researchers, governmental and non-governmental bodies, users, and inhabitants (Foucat, 2002).
Recognizing these diverse needs for sustainable management, a wide range of studies are being conducted on documenting, characterizing, and predicting the occurrences and patterns of litho, hydro, bio, and atmospheric processes, and the resultant responses of coastal zones, at various spatial and temporal scales. In this chapter, we demonstrate how coastal zone management strategies transcend the spatial and temporal scales and why integrated management should be implemented for sustenance.
2 Transcendence of Local Issues to a Global Scale Through Regional Processes
2.1 Spatial-Temporal Scale of Cause-Effect
According to Brommer and Bochev-van der Burgh (2009), in light of projected global climate change (IPCC, 2007), it is of paramount importance to understand the long-term (decades to centuries) and large-scale (10–102 km2) evolution of coastal zones for sustainable coastal management and related coastal impact assessments. Within these sustainable visions, shoreline management plans should be developed targeting the determination of future coastal defence policies and strategic long-term planning for shoreline evolution. Forecasts of coastal changes and quantitative risk assessments spanning this time interval are key requirements. However, present coastal research still mainly focuses on forecasting coastal system evolution in response to changes in hydrodynamic processes and sea level on rather small temporal scales, for example, the tidal cycle. The overall trend or direction the system evolves to on longer temporal scales can greatly affect and alter the impact of smaller-scale processes; but still, little is known on how to account for changes in long-term system evolution (Brommer and Bochev-van der Burgh, 2009).
Cowell et al. (2003) presented the spatial and temporal scales of coastal processes into observable landforms (Fig. 1) and interpreted them into exogenic and endogenic processes. As shown in Fig. 1, the processes operate and the products result from a variety of spatial and temporal scales. From these, it can be surmised that the coastal zone management practices, applicable to a geographic location for a time-duration, may not be applicable and or effective for other settings and timeframes. Hence, understanding the spatial and temporal scales of processes that are in operation in a setting, followed by designing and implementing management strategies, could be the key for success. Through a review, Mumby and Harborne (1999) demonstrated a case in this regard. These authors detailed the problems of usage of nonstandard scales in defining habitats, and presented a list of challenges and pitfalls of coastal zone management. They also elaborated on how nonsystematic classification of habitats and ambiguous documentation creates problems on several scales. First, meaningful interpretation of the habitat classification scheme may be difficult on the scale of individual habitat maps. This difficulty applies to managers using the scheme for planning, and field surveyors attempting to adopt it in situ. Second, integrating several habitat maps on, say, a national scale is difficult because there is little or no standardization in terms. Thus, not only it is difficult to decide when two terms are synonymous, but the lack of quantitative detail also obscures actual differences in habitat types, thereby decreasing the probability that habitats will be distinguished corr...