what can humans do to reduce coastal erosion

The active coastal zone (planform and cross-shore contour of the subaqueous beach, the subaerial embankment and adjacent dune) will always tend to a country of dynamic equilibrium. If some parts are highly resistant to erosion (presence of hard outcrops or cliffs, for example), this tin can take a very long time. All the same, if the agile littoral zone consists exclusively of loose sediments, a country of dynamic equilibrium can exist reached in rather brusk periods, of the gild of years or decades. The longer periods agree for beaches in the vicinity of coastal inlets. The embankment state at equilibrium is not static, only fluctuates effectually the equilibrium state in response to fluctuations in hydrodynamic factors (tidal cycles, wave climate) and sediment supply. These beach fluctuations correspond to alternating phases of erosion and accretion. Structural erosion or accretion can only happen in response to structural changes in the hydrodynamic conditions, in structural changes in sediment supply or in subsoil move. These structural changes tin take a natural cause or a human cause. Climate change, which influences sea level, moving ridge climate and sediment supply, is considered a natural cause. The largest structural changes in hydrodynamic conditions and sediment supply are more often than not due to human interventions.

This article describes how dissimilar kinds of human interventions may affect coastal erosion. Natural causes of coastal erosion are discussed in some other article. About of the content of this commodity is drawn from Mangor et al. 2017 ^[ane].

Contents

• one Interference with coastal structures
  • 1.ane Groynes and similar structures perpendicular to the shore
  • ane.ii Ports built on the coast
  • 1.3 Inlet jetties at tidal inlets and river mouths
  • i.four Detached breakwaters
• 2 Seawalls and revetments
• three Erosion due to subtract of fluvial sand supply
  • iii.1 River dams
  • 3.ii Sand mining in rivers
  • 3.three River-related impacts
• four Erosion of bays enclosed between headlands
• v Wake from Fast Ferries
• 6 Sand and Coral Mining, and Maintenance Dredging
• vii Concluding Remarks
• 8 Related articles
• ix References

Interference with coastal structures

Coastal structures interfering with the coastal transport are the near mutual crusade of coastal erosion. The presence of the construction has a series of effects (encounter Coastal Hydrodynamics And Transport Processes and Littoral drift and shoreline modelling):

• Trapping of sand at the upstream side of the structure that reduces sand supply to the adjacent shores. This causes more often than not erosion at the lee side, but large structures may also cause (initial) erosion on the upstream side.
• Loss of sand to deep h2o.
• Trapping of sand in archway channels and outer harbours. Sand is often deposited in deep water subsequently being removed by dredging.

The structures, which may cause this type of erosion, are:

• Groynes and similar structures perpendicular to the shore.
• Ports (see as well Port breakwaters and coastal erosion).
• Inlet jetties at tidal inlets and river mouths.
• detached breakwaters.
• Coastal reclamations.

The accumulation and erosion patterns side by side to coastal structures depend among other things on:

• The wave climate and the orientation of the shoreline (see Nomenclature of sandy coastlines)
• The extent of the structure relative to the width of the surf zone
• The detailed shape of the coastal structure

The typical bear upon on coastal processes and related shore erosion problems for different types of structures will be discussed briefly in the post-obit. A more comprehensive description of the structures and their part is given in Hard coastal protection structures. The relation between structures and coastal erosion is likewise described in the articles: Dealing with coastal erosion, Port breakwaters and coastal erosion and Accession and erosion for different coastal types.

Groynes and like structures perpendicular to the shore

Groynes are usually built perpendicular to the shoreline with the purpose of protecting a section of the shoreline past blocking (part) of the littoral ship, whereby sand is accumulated on the upstream side of the groyne. However, sand trapping causes a deficit in the littoral drift budget, and this kind of coast protection is ever associated with respective erosion on the lee side of the construction (Fig.i). In other words, a groyne just shifts the erosion problem to the downstream area. This is the reason that groynes are oftentimes built in long series along the shoreline, a so-called groyne field. In an attempt to compensate for the effect of the upstream groyne(s), new downstream groynes were built, which shifted the lee side erosion problem even further downstream.

Fig.ane. Typical touch of a groyne on a coastal drift beach: accretion at the updrift side (left) and erosion at the downdrift side. Photo credit: Dan Scutter.

The efficiency of a groyne field as a protection measure depends on the length of the groynes relative to the width of the littoral zone and the number and spacing of the groynes. A spacing of i.5-3 times the groyne length is generally found to exist most effective^[2]. The more efficient the groyne field is protecting the shoreline inside the groyne field, the more lee side erosion will be experienced downstream.

Also, groynes generate or strengthen offshore-directed currents – and so-chosen rip currents. These rip currents are dangerous for swimmers and transport sand to deeper water, enhancing sand arrears in the littoral zone ^[3]. These rip currents can be reduced by a T-shape design of the seaward end of the groyn ^[2].

These effects of groynes were not fully understood and realised at the starting time of the last century when about major groyne fields were constructed. Nowadays, this mechanism is understood and tin can be modelled and therefore groynes tin can be designed to fulfil their purpose optimally.

Apart from beingness beneficial to erosion impacts, groynes practice not add to the beauty of the landscape.

Examples of coastline response to different types of groyne schemes are presented in the commodity on groynes as shore protection. Effects of groynes and different types of groynes are as well presented in Groynes.

Ports built on the coast

The primary purpose of a port is to provide safe mooring and navigation for the calling vessels but when built on the shoreline it interferes with the coastal drift budget and the results are sedimentation and shoreline impact.

Similar a groyne, the harbour moles of a port can block the littoral transport, past trapping sand at the updrift side in the course of an accumulating sand sheet. The sedimentation that occurs at the harbour entrance in the case of sand bypass requires maintenance dredging and deposition of the dredged sand. The result is a deficit in the littoral drift budget, which causes lee side erosion along the adjacent shoreline. A port on the coast must therefore be designed such that sedimentation and coastal bear on is minimal. Attention has not always been paid to these requirements. The effect is that many ports trap large amounts of sand and suffer from severe sedimentation (Fig.2).

Fig.2. Left: The new seaport of Nouakchott (Islamic republic of mauritania) built in 1985 (Google Earth image October 2017). The port blocks the strong N-Southward coastal drift forth the Mauritanian declension due to its orientation perpendicular to the dominant wave management. The outcome is massive accretion at the updrift side and equivalent massive erosion at the downdrift side of the harbour. The sedimentation at the updrift side extends beyond the tip of the harbour mole, causing siltation of the port entrance channel which therefore has to be dredged. Right: The (smaller) former port of Nouakchott, built in 1965, situated ten kilometers north of the new port (Google Globe image April 2018). The quay is connected to the coast by a bridge and oriented along the ascendant wave direction. This construction does not block the littoral drift and therefore has no bear upon on the shoreline.

The principal shoreline development on coasts with oblique wave approach is discussed in Accretion and erosion for different coastal types. The effects of different types of ports on coastal erosion is also described in Port breakwaters and coastal erosion.

Inlet jetties at tidal inlets and river mouths

Tidal inlets and river mouths are often by nature shallow and variable in location, which makes them unsuitable for navigation. In club to improve navigation conditions and, to some extent, flushing conditions, many tidal inlets and river inlets have regulated mouths. The regulation may consist of jetties, perchance combined with maintenance dredging programmes. If the tidal inlets and the river mouths are located on littoral drift shorelines, they are oftentimes in a natural equilibrium with respect to bypassing of the littoral drift, which unremarkably occurs on a shallow bar across the inlet. If the inlet/mouth is upgraded to accommodate navigation, this bar is normally cutting off past the jetties or dredged.

For the to a higher place reasons, regulated inlets are unremarkably obstructions to the littoral transport which ways upstream sand accumulation forth the upstream jetty, loss of sand due to sedimentation in the deepened channel and the associated maintenance dredging. All in all, regulated inlets volition very often cause lee side erosion bug. Legislation requiring mitigation measures, such as bogus sand featherbed, is not always respected. At many such locations mitigation measures have never been introduced or severely delayed.

In decision, past and present regulations of tidal inlets and river mouths are responsible for major erosion along many coastlines throughout the globe. See also Typical examples of structural erosion and Port breakwaters and littoral erosion.

Detached breakwaters

Discrete breakwaters are used as shore and coast protection measures. In general terms, a detached breakwater is a declension-parallel structure located inside or shut to the surf-zone. As this subject is too extensive for this page, encounter Detached breakwaters for a detailed discussion on the subject.

Seawalls and revetments

Other types of littoral protection that exercise not protrude into the sea will, however, also crusade increased coastal erosion. Seawalls and revetments are typically synthetic along coastal sections to provide protection of the coast. Seawalls are alongshore structures built equally vertical walls, as sea dikes with smooth sloping stone revetments, as geotubes or every bit rip-rap concrete blocks or rock. Coasts protected by seawalls are called 'armoured coasts'.

The touch of seawalls on coastal erosion depends, amongst other things, on the location of the construction in the coastal profile, on the littoral drift and on the natural embankment evolution ^[4].

In the case of a naturally accreting declension, the main reason for building a seawall is to protect littoral settlements from storm surge damage or to protect low-lying hinterland from flooding. The seawall is usually fronted by a broad beach and its touch on beach dynamics is negligible.

Fig.3. Left: Low eroded beach at the Bardsea seawall, situated on the macrotidal Morecambe Bay (U.k.). Reinforcement of the toe of the seawall has been necessary to avoid undermining by wave scouring. Photo credit: Stephen Mackenzie. Right: Rock infill of a trench scoured at the toe of a seawall at Le Dicq (Island of Jersey). Photo credit: HR Wallingford.

Seawalls are built most often on eroding coasts; their chief function is to stop erosion. Nevertheless, the erosion process seaward of the structure continues and may even be enhanced. Later some fourth dimension no beach will be left in front of the seawall. At that stage the toe of the seawall volition exist scoured by waves and the structure volition plummet if the toe is not sufficiently protected ^[5] (Fig.iii). Whether a seawall enhances erosion before the beach has disappeared (so-called 'active erosion') is site dependent. Active erosion increases with decreasing beach width. Three processes play a role:

1. Embankment lowering by enhanced wave energy dissipation at the toe of the seawall. This procedure is significant in the case of frequent moving ridge set on on the seawall or insufficient sand supply by littoral drift for beach recovering afterwards tempest erosion ^{[six] [vii]}.
2. Enhanced beach lowering and shoreline retreat after storm erosion ^[8]. In the case of a non-armoured dune coast, sand is supplied to the beach from dune erosion, whereas in the case of an armoured declension, dune sand is retained behind the seawall. Nevertheless, this issue is non always observed and may be temporary. Basco (2004) ^[nine] institute that for a 2m/year retreating beach at Virginia "the seasonal variability of sand book in front of walls was slightly greater than at non-walled locations. Winter season waves dragged more sand offshore in front of walls but summer swell waves piled more sand upwardly confronting walls in embankment rebuilding. Walled beaches were plant to recover about the aforementioned time as non-walled beaches for both seasonal transitions (winter to summer) and post-obit erosional storm events."

   

   Fig.iv. Embankment erosion downdrift of a seawall at Zanzibar.

3. Erosion at the leeside of the seawall, later on the front end beach has disappeared ^{[10] [11]}. An eroding shore/declension supplies material to the littoral transport upkeep if the erosion is allowed to go along. When the erosion is stopped at certain sections past the construction of seawalls or revetments, the supply of sand from this department of the shoreline to the sediment budget along the side by side sections of shorelines will stop, whereby these adjacent shorelines will exist exposed to increased erosion (Fig.4). The active trapping structures, such as groynes and breakwaters, will also act in this style in addition to their more direct coastal impact every bit discussed above.

The erosion of soft cliffs oftentimes appears to be very drastic, which is why they have, in many cases, been the offset to exist protected in an area. However, before their protection they were the main suppliers of sediments to the littoral cell in question. Consequently, their protection leads to increased erosion at next lower sections of the coastline. The result is that the erosion has been shifted to less resistant areas resulting in higher area losses per year.

Another impact of seawalls is the reduction of aeolian transport for the formation and extension of a littoral dune belt ^[12].

Other relevant articles on this topic are Seawall, Revetments and Seawalls and revetments.

Erosion due to decrease of fluvial sand supply

Fig.5. Catchment basins with per centum of sediment discharge retained in bogus reservoirs, epitome from Vorosmarty et al (2003) ^[13]

Subtract of fluvial sand supply to the coastal zone is a mutual crusade of coastal erosion. Reduction of fluvial sand supply tin can result from different human interventions:

• cosmos of reservoirs for power product and irrigation purposes by the construction of river dams,
• deepening of navigation channels,
• mining of river sand.

River dams

Fig.6. Natural delta accretion (left) before and delta erosion (correct) of the Rosetta Promontory of the Nile delta before and after the structure of the depression Aswan Dam around 1910 and the high Aswan Dam in the 1960´s.

Thousands of dams take been synthetic on rivers worldwide, creating reservoirs which retain a big office of the sediment discharge from the catchment areas (Fig.v). Perhaps the best-known example of littoral erosion related to sediment trapping behind a river dam is the erosion of the Nile Delta declension later on the construction of the Loftier Aswan Dam in the 1960´s, see Fig.6. The promontory propagated until 1909 and then began to erode. The reasons for the erosion of 42 grand/year during the period 1909-1971 were mainly a reduction in the river belch and the construction of the Low Aswan Dam, whereas the drastically increased erosion charge per unit of 129 m/twelvemonth afterward 1971 was acquired past the construction of the Loftier Aswan Dam.

Sand mining in rivers

Sand mining in rivers is a major cause of coastal erosion in many countries. Sand mining in a river lowers the river bed, causes depository financial institution erosion and reduces the supply of sand to the coast. There are five components in the sediment balance for a degrading river section, schematically represented in Fig.7.

Fig.seven. Sediment balance for a rive segment

The components are:

Sources:

• Sand supply from the catchment, Qcatch
• Lowering of the river bed, Qbed
• Bank erosion, Qbank

Sinks:

• Sand extraction (sand mining), Qmining
• Sand discharge to the coast, Qcoast

The average sediment discharge to the coast follows from the following equation:

[math]Q_{coast} = Q_{catch}\, + Q_{bed}\, + Q_{bank}\, - Q_{mining}[/math]

Many rivers consist of a steep upper function, the mount function, and a gently sloping lower function, where the river crosses the littoral plain. Sand extraction in the upper part of the river causes lowering of the river bed and a similar lowering of the water level, hence no changes in the sediment transport capacity. Thus the sand extraction in the upper part of the river is almost entirely counterbalanced by local bed degradation, and has inappreciably whatever immediate impact on the supply of sand to the declension. Sand mining in the lower part of the river at some altitude from the river rima oris causes a local lowering of the river bed. Nonetheless, the water level will not lower as much, which results in a local decrease in the flow velocity and in the sediment transport capacity. The river bed depression volition gradually be filled in from upstream supply and will travel towards the declension. When the impact of sand mining reaches the declension there may be an accumulated deficit in available river bed material corresponding to several decades sediment supply from the catchment. This ways that an firsthand halt in the sand mining will have inappreciably any remedial consequence on the supply of sand to the coast, equally the entire river bed has to rebuild earlier the original supply is re-established. Sand mining shut to the river mouth causes an immediate subtract in the supply of sand to the coast, and halt of the sand mining in this situation volition quickly crusade recover of the supply of sand to the declension. These impacts of sand mining on coastal sediment supply are observed in many rivers, for example for rivers in Sri Lanka ^[fourteen].

Coastal erosion is not the only touch on of river sand mining. Other impacts as well accept to exist taken into consideration:

• Deeper penetration of the tide into rivers and estuaries and increased saline intrusion, especially during the dry flavour; this may crusade troubles for water intakes and for irrigation and cause changes to the estuarine habitats.
• Increased flooding origination from the body of water.
• Lowering of the beds of the rivers too crusade lowering of the water level in the rivers, affecting the ground water table in the flood plains. This may have impact on agriculture especially during the dry flow. It besides causes issues for intakes to older irrigation schemes as they are at present to a higher place the water level in the river.
• Lowering of the river bed is in general less uniform forth the river than the corresponding lowering of the water level. This may cause issues for navigation, specially when river discharge is low.
• Reduction of flood levels for small and medium sized floods, because the deepened river bed and the low h2o level provides more volume between the river banks. However, extreme floods volition still spread over the flood plains. The absence of regular "small" inundations is likely to enhance man's encroachment on to the flood plain, thus causing increased "flooding problems" when the real large floods occur.

Hence, river sand mining requires an integrated approach taking into business relationship all the impacts. This calls for close collaboration between river government and littoral authorities.

Erosion of bays enclosed between headlands

Fig.8. The correlation between the shape of a crescent-shaped bay and the transport supply to the bay.

Small sandy bays enclosed betwixt headlands have in general a crescentic shape, which is due to wave diffraction at the headlands and wave refraction in nearshore shallow water (see Shallow-water wave theory). However, the shape and position of the shoreline depends non only on the wave climate, but also on sand supply to the bay. There are two possible sources (encounter Fig.8):

• Sand from another bay passing by littoral drift along one of the headlands, Q_B;
• Sand supply from a river, Q_R.

The overall transport mechanisms in a crescent-shaped bay can be characterised as follows. The supply of sand from the upstream bay Q_B volition pass the headland and cross the bay via a bar. If a river also contributes Q_R to the coastal upkeep, this material will be transported downdrift into the bay, partly along the shoreline and partly onto the bar. These transport processes are adequately complicated and ii-dimensional in nature, but they result in the supply of Q_B + Q_R to the straight downdrift section of the crescent-shaped shoreline of the bay. The direction of this straight section is given by the wave climate and the bodily sum Q_S1 = Q_B + Q_R according to the send correlation between incident moving ridge direction α₁ and the transport Q_S1, shown in Fig.8 (The dependence of littoral drift on the wave incidence angle is explained in Shallow-h2o wave theory and Littoral drift and shoreline modelling).

The shape of the crescent-shaped bay is stable, apart from seasonal variations, as long as the supply of fabric to the bay Q_S1 is not changed. Notwithstanding, if the supply of material to the bay is reduced, typically by changes to the updrift bay or by changes to the river, the overall shape of the bay volition also change, equally the management of the directly section volition adjust to the new sum Q₂, where Q₂ < Q₁, leading to erosion in the unabridged bay, equally sketched in Fig.viii.

This means that homo interventions, which cause changes in one bay volition gradually penetrate into the downdrift bays. Hence, crescent-shaped trophy, although they appear fairly stable, are actually very sensitive to interventions that modify the supply of sand.

Wake from Fast Ferries

Fig.ix. Wake waves from a fast ferry in Tory Channel, Queen Charlotte Audio, New Zealand. (Copyright: Marlborough District Council, photographer: Graeme Matthews).

Wakes from fast ferries cause shore degradation in sheltered littoral environments ^{[15] [16]}. The special wake generated by fast ferries is characterised past a series of approximately ten relatively low waves (significant wave height below one m), but relatively long waves. These wake waves are very similar to swell waves and they are exposed to considerable shoaling when approaching the declension. They oftentimes break as plunging breakers.

If a fast ferry navigates through protected waters, the wake waves are very unlike from the natural waves along the navigation road. The wake waves acquired by fast ferries may influence littoral atmospheric condition in the post-obit ways:

• by higher wave uprush than that produced by normal waves;
• by irresolute the littoral morphological processes in the expanse. This tin can result in erosion as well as the germination of a large beach berm;
• by breaking unexpectedly and violently, the waves can be dangerous for dinghies and for bathers.

A precondition for approving of a new fast ferry route is therefore to perform an ecology impact cess study ^[17]. This volition often result in navigation restrictions for certain parts of the route. An case of the touch on of such waves is presented in Fig.9. Note the violent breaking, turbid h2o and rip currents.

Sand and Coral Mining, and Maintenance Dredging

The mining of sand and gravel forth beaches and in the surf-zone will cause erosion by depleting the shore of its sediment resources. In connection with maintenance dredging of tidal inlets, harbours, and navigation channels, sand is very often lost from the littoral budget because the sand, unless otherwise regulated by legislation, is normally dumped at deep water. Coral mining and other means of spoiling the protective coral reefs, for example, fishing by the use of explosives or pollution, will also cause coastal erosion and beach degradation. The protective function of the reef disappears and the product of carbonate sand stops.

In decision, information technology tin can be seen that nearly every type of development and coastal protection along a littoral shoreline or forth rivers will outcome in erosion of the next shores and coasts.

An overview of sediment sources and losses to the coastal zone is presented in Fig.x.

Fig.10. Overview over sediment sources and losses to the coastal area

Related articles

For more than data on the groundwork of coastal erosion:

• Dealing with littoral erosion
• Littoral drift and shoreline modelling: 1-line model for shoreline response to gradients in littoral drift.
• Natural causes of coastal erosion: causes of erosion, such as transport gradient, loss of sand, sea level rise and subsidence.
• Littoral Hydrodynamics And Transport Processes: hydrodynamic groundwork of the movement and transport of sediment

For more information on the relation between human intervention and littoral erosion:

• Accession and erosion for different littoral types: Erosion caused by a large port for different types of coasts
• Port breakwaters and littoral erosion: Furnishings of breakwaters from dissimilar types of ports (isolated, river mouth in the bounding main, oral cavity of a large estuary) on coastal erosion

References

1. ↑ Mangor, M., Drønen, N. K., Kaergaard, K.H. and Kristensen, N.Eastward. 2017. Shoreline management guidelines. DHI https://world wide web.dhigroup.com/marine-h2o/ebook-shoreline-management-guidelines
2. ↑ ^{ii.0 2.1} van Rijn, L., 2011. Coastal erosion and command. Periodical of Bounding main and Coastal Direction, 54(12), 867–887.
3. ↑ Castelle, B., Scott, T., Brander, R.W. and McCarroll, R.J. 2016. Rip current types, circulation and hazard. Earth-Science Reviews 163: 1-21
4. ↑ Weggel, J.R., 1988, Seawalls—The need for research, dimensional considerations and a suggested classification, in Kraus, Northward.C., and Pilkey, O.H., eds., The Effects of Seawalls on the Beach: Journal of Coastal Research Special Upshot 4, p. 29–xl.
5. ↑ Bradbury, A., Rogers, J. and Thomas, D. 2012. Toe structures management manual. Environment Agency
6. ↑ Kraus, N. C. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the beach: a literature review. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '87, American Society of Ceremonious Engineers, 945-960.
7. ↑ Sutherland, J., Brampton, A.H., Obhrai, C., Dunn, S. and Whitehouse, R.J.South. 2007. Understanding the Lowering of Beaches in front of Littoral Defense force Structures, Stage two. R&D Technical Report FD1927/TR. Joint Defra/EA Inundation and Littoral Erosion Run a risk Direction R&D Program
8. ↑ Griggs, G.B., and Tait, J.F., 1990, Beach response to the presence of a seawall—A comparison of field observations: Shore and Beach, v. 58, no. 2, p. 11–28
9. ↑ Basco, D.R., 2004. Seawall impact on adjacent beaches: Separating fact from fiction. In: Klein, A.H.F.; Finkl, C.W., and Diehl, F.50. (eds.), The International Coastal Symposium (ICS 2004; Brazil). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Effect No. 39, pp. 741–744.
10. ↑ Dean, R. Yard. 1986. Coastal armoring: furnishings, principles and mitigation. Proceedings of 20th Littoral Engineering Conference, American Order of Ceremonious Engineers, 1843-1857.
11. ↑ Komar, P D. and McDougal, Due west.G., 1988. Coastal erosion and engineering structures: The Oregon feel. In: Kraus, Northward.C. and Pilkey, O.H. (eds.), The Furnishings of Seawalls on the Embankment. Periodical of Coastal Inquiry, Special Issue No. 4, pp. 77–92.
12. ↑ Nordstrom, Yard.F. 2014. Living with shore protection structures: A review Estuarine, Littoral and Shelf Scientific discipline 150: eleven-23
13. ↑ Vorosmarty, C. J., Meybeck, K., Fekete, B., Sharma, Thousand., Green, P. and Syvitski, J.P.M. 2003. Anthropogenic sediment retention: major global impact from registered river impoundments. Global and Planetary Change 39: 169–190.
14. ↑ Mangor, K., 2002. Shoreline Management, Background Document for the second revision of the Littoral Zone Management Program, Sri Lanka, 2002. Performed under the Coastal Resources Management Program, Sri Lanka. ADB TA No. 3477 SRI
15. ↑ Bilkovic, D., Mitchell, M., Davis, J., Andrews, E., Rex, A., Mason, P., Herman, J. and Tahvildari N. 2017. Review of boat wake wave impacts on shoreline erosion and potential solutions for the Chesapeake Bay. STAC Publication Number 17-002, Edgewater, Dr.. 68 pp.
16. ↑ Zaggia, L., Lorenzetti, 1000., Manfé, K., Scarpa, G.M., Molinaroli, E., Parnell, K.E., Rapaglia, J.P., Gionta, G. and Soomere, T. 2017. Fast shoreline erosion induced past ship wakes in a coastal lagoon: Field evidence and remote sensing analysis. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0187210.
17. ↑ Glamore, W.C. 2005. A Decision Back up Tool for Assessing the Affect of Boat Wake Waves on Inland Waterways. PIANC paper https://world wide web.pianc.org/downloads/dwa/Wglamore_DPWApaper.pdf

hamiltonpallow.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Human_causes_of_coastal_erosion

Share this post