This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Pol Sci 542: "Policy and Politics of Coastal Areas" Iowa State University Summer 2007
"There are three approaches to coastal erosion: armor, beach nourishment and retreat. Until the twentieth century, retreat was the favored option. A growing number of people say it should be our policy again" (Dean 1999: 185). Fortunately, a good deal of coastal management issues are amenable to this third approach, even in the face of considerable opposition by property owners and elected officials who favor the first two approaches. However, certain other aspects of coastal management are particularly troublesome when the "retreat" approach is applied. The problem stems from the interrelation of the value of a coastal site with the coastal location of the site. In other words, coastal properties are valuable because they are on the coast, rather than inland. The preservation of historic structures and archaeological sites located in coastal zones is one example of this conundrum. Coastal erosion threatens historic and archaeological sites in the same way it threatens contemporary structures and the infrastructure that supports them. Yet, while moving historic structures inland and ex situ preservation of (i.e. excavation of) archaeological sites is possible (Dean 1999: Chp. 9; English Heritage 2003), this is not always the preferred solution in historic preservation and archaeological practice. The reason for this, once again, is the value lent to a site by its location. In the case of preservation, that value is an interpretive and pedagogic one, rather than an economic one as in the case of private property. The educational value of an historic structure is greater in situ, on the site where its history happened, than when it is moved inland or above water and out of this physical context. The situation for archaeological sites is somewhat more complex. An archaeological site encompasses more than just pottery sherds, bones and stone tools: micro–faunal 2
remains and fossilized pollen contained in the soil, and features like post hole impressions and charcoal pits, are as important in site interpretation as the more tangible artifacts. These features are actually a part of the site, and excavating them, or allowing them to erode before excavation occurs, destroys them along with the site. As a result, valuable information is lost not only to us, but to future generations who may possess more advanced methods of excavation and site interpretation. The implications of natural processes like coastal erosion on historic structures and archaeological sites, as well as the impacts of tourism, commercial fishing, commercial salvage operations and underwater mining operations, are, therefore, important to consider in the preservation of coastal cultural heritage sites. Most of the coastal management literature mentions the preservation of historic sites only in passing, as one of many factors considered in any particular coastal management plan (e.g. US Department of Commerce 1997; Georgia Ports Authority 1998; NOAA 2000; Cassar 2003; Craig 2004; Doody 2004). Similarly, with few exceptions, the historic preservation and archaeological literature on the subject rarely discusses the implications of erosion processes and tourist activities on coastal structures and sites and how policy can address it. The purpose of this paper is to provide on overview of existing English-language literature on policy responses to issues in coastal historic and archaeological preservation, or ‘cultural heritage’. The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage defines cultural heritage as including “monuments,…inscriptions, cave dwellings,…groups of buildings,…the combined works of man and nature, and… archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view” (WHC 1972:Article 1). The 3
terms ‘cultural heritage’, ‘maritime heritage’, ‘underwater heritage’, ‘historic resource’ and ‘cultural resource’ will be used loosely and interchangeably throughout this paper. As suggested above, the literature on coastal cultural heritage is concentrated primarily in the disciplines of coastal management, historic preservation and archaeology. What literature does exist on the subject covers the various ways in which coastal historic and archaeological sites are affected by their environment and how policy makers have responded. The policy issues covered in the literature are highly varied and include such things as managing the threat of sea-level rise to historic resources in national parks (Pendleton, Thieler & Williams 2005), mitigating the damage of high-speed watercraft on coastal archaeological sites (Parnell & Kofoed-Hansen 2001), and the facilitation of preservation efforts by the very forces that threaten historic resources (Savouret 2004). The literature will be analyzed in the context of the holistic approach to coastal management called Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Following the analysis some suggestions are made for future avenues of research.
ICZM and cultural heritage
Integrated Coastal Zone Management, or ICZM, is a holistic approach to the management of conflicting uses of coastal resources. The interaction between human activity (economic and social) and natural processes is the management focus of ICZM (CZM-Centre 2001). The holistic approach of ICZM is accomplished by looking at all aspects of coastal resource use, rather than focusing on just one aspect (e.g. natural resources, real estate or historical resources) as if it were unrelated to the others. From the perspective of ICZM, issues in coastal historic and archaeological preservation cannot be extricated from the broader coastal context of nature conservation, land 4
development, recreational use and mitigation of natural hazards to human activity, namely shoreline erosion, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons) and sea-level rise. Historic and archaeological sites are valuable resources in terms of their intrinsic value. They are a “patrimony testifying [to] the history and the visions of the world” held by coastal communities (Callegari 2003:49). However, the application of ICZM to issues of historic and archaeological preservation uncovers an additional value: the potential for these resources to generate economic revenue as tourist destinations. Relatively recent advances in technology (e.g. SCUBA) have allowed previously inaccessible historic shipwrecks and submerged archaeological sites to become the locus of conflicting uses between scientists, “treasure hunters” and tourists. Likewise, the conflicting demands of economic development and historic and archaeological preservation are being played out on land as well. The ICZM approach holds promise for the resolution of many of these issues by incorporating historic and archaeological sites into economic development plans. ICZM programs and projects have been developed in many parts of the world that incorporate historic and archaeological resource management as an explicit focus of coastal management. An overview of the literature about these projects could be organized along many different lines: location, threat to resource, and ICZM strategies for preservation. The organizational approach used in this review will be according to resource type. The following sections will look at the literature as it applies to two broadly defined resource types: 1) supra-tidal and inter-tidal sites and 2) sub-tidal, or submerged, sites.
Supra-tidal and inter-tidal sites
Supra-tidal sites are those situated on ground located above the high-tide line. This includes structures and artifact assemblages on the beach yet above the high-tide line, as well as those located further inland yet still affected by coastal natural processes like erosion and tropical storm surges, or by tourism and economic activities. An example of a supra-tidal site is a lighthouse or an historic waterfront district or port complex. Inter-tidal sites are those situated within the inter-tidal zone, or between the high- and low-tide lines. Examples of inter-tidal sites include forts (like the Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida) and rock paintings located in partially submerged coastal cave systems. There is considerable overlap between these two categories of sites, which is why they are dealt with under one heading in this paper. The literature as
Figure 1 - Archaeologists excavate in the Sigatoka Dunes on Fiji (from: Simon Fraser University website, http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/, accessed 10 July 2007.
it applies to supra- and inter-tidal historic and archaeological sites will be examined in the following two sections.
Historic ruins and archaeological sites
Management of historic and archaeological sites in coastal areas relies on an understanding of the natural processes that affect these sites and the mechanisms through which they act. The archaeological literature provides some examples of studies of these mechanisms. Przywolnik (2002) studied the effect of tropical storm surges on shell middens on the northern coast of Australia. She found that storm surges were a significant factor in the modern appearance of middens located seaward of dunes and that sites located landward of the dunes were considerably less affected. The management implication is that dune stabilization may significantly help in the preservation of middens located landward of coastal dunes. Maurício, Pacheco, Brito, Castro, Figueiredo & Aires-Barros (2005), in their concern for the preservation of Portugal’s heritage, developed a new, non-invasive method for monitoring the deterioration of historic stone monuments. This is a positive development for the practice of cultural heritage management as it allows for a more systematic and less labor-intensive means of assessing the condition of historic monuments. More directly relevant to policy concerns is Lowe’s (1998) survey of an archaeological landscape centered around St. Boniface church on the island of Papa Westray in Orkney, Scotland. Sponsored by Historic Scotland, a national agency responsible for the management of cultural and natural heritage lands, their concern was “to develop a cost-effective means
of tackling the assessment of large, extensive, deep sites with complex stratigraphy” (Sec. 1.1.2). Historic Scotland’s counterpart in England, English Heritage, is involved with what is perhaps the most sincere effort at incorporating historic and archaeological preservation into coastal management strategies (English Heritage 2003). The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible for funding local coastal management plans in England. Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) are developed by local operating authorities according to guidelines published by Defra. The plans emphasize that “all of the generic coastal defence options can have implications for the historic environment” (p. 3). Other aspects of coastal management dealt with by English Heritage include the policy environment, procedures for ensuring that the historic environment is included in coastal management assessments, and the effects of coastal realignment projects on historic and archaeological sites. By insisting that cultural heritage “be considered as part of the cost-benefit analysis of coastal defence systems” (p. 9), English Heritage has demonstrated exemplary leadership on the issue of historic preservation within coastal policy. Fitzpatrick, Kappers & Kaye (2006) investigated erosion of coastal archaeological sites in the Lesser Antillian island of Carriacou and determined that the local practice of sand mining was causing as much damage. They suggested that management programs should address theses traditional activities, noting that “it is easier to manage the activities of people than to manage the coast” (p. 260). Two studies from Portugal and Mexico approach the issue of coastal cultural heritage from a broader point of view than the previous studies, seeking conclusions that are applicable to other policy areas. Carrasco, Ferreira, Matias & Dias (2007) studied a pair of historic ruins in Portugal for 8
the effects of shoreline erosion and developed a set of policy scenarios consisting of no intervention, armoring of the shoreline and removal or relocation of the historic ruins and artifacts. They note that “it is not easy to balance costs and benefits in complex coastal management issues” like those involving historic structures and sites (p. 170). Téllez Duarte (1993) discusses this complexity within the context of Mexico’s Baja California coastal zone. Using three archaeological sites as examples, he proposes an integrated coastal management plan for the preservation of paleontological and archaeological resources, emphasizing the use of different types of museums (i.e. removal of artifacts) to accommodate the needs of different stakeholders.
On the subject of revitalization of historic waterfronts, the issue of balancing multiple stakeholders is again an important concern. In his study of a naval base in the UK, Riley (1999) concludes with a pointed questioning of how the economic benefits of historic sites (in this case, historic naval vessels) can be balanced against the “elite” need for authenticity in the preservation community (p. 906). The issue here is not erosion or storm surge, but rather the impact of coastal tourism on preservation and the tension this creates for policy makers trying to balance the two interests. Clark & Pinder (1999) also address this conflict between tourism and preservation uses of historic sites. In their study of Venice’s Renaissance-era naval docks (the Arsenale), they encourage a more diverse range of uses, encompassing not only tourism, but adaptive reuse by universities and the modern Italian military as well. Whatever its range of uses, a revitalized Arsenale has great potential to generate income for the local economy due to Venice’s historic ties to the water and the tourism-related appeal of using the Arsenale
as a water gateway (a historic method of entry into the city). The impact that this kind of tourism would have on coastal management in Venice is unexamined in the study and deserves further consideration. In a later study, Pinder (2003) looks at the “environments” that affect policy decisions regarding cultural heritage preservation in coastal zones. He concludes that awareness of cultural heritage and its economic
Figure 2 - The late-16th century Gaggiandre docks (from Clark & Pinder 1999)
potential is not enough to garner support for preservation projects. To address this problem in the UK’s coastal zones, he proposes a national adoption of a series of policy guides formulated by the European Union that incorporate heritage preservation within a larger program of coastal zone management.
Submerged sites are those situated below the high-tide line under modern climatic conditions. These sites consist of material and structures that once existed above the water, although their cultural functions are usually related to coastal activities. The type of submerged site most commonly dealt with in the preservation and policy literature is shipwrecks. Another type of submerged site is formerly terrestrial sites of occupation, such as prehistoric occupation sites and other artifact assemblages. The discussion that follows will focus primarily on shipwrecks. Although many natural processes, such as the movement of sea-bed sediments (Muckelroy 1978), affect shipwreck sites, the impacts discussed in the literature reviewed here are mostly from human activity.
Shipwrecks and other submerged sites
The literature on management of shipwrecks is somewhat more extensive than that of other types of coastal heritage sites. Likewise, policy concerning the management of shipwreck sites is more coherent and specifically focused on the unique set of environmental and cultural factors that impact the preservation of these sites. Nonetheless, in the two jurisdictions that are subject to the most attention in the literature, the UK (particularly England) and the US, faults with policy as it pertains to coastal cultural heritage are readily apparent. In their comprehensive survey of the policy and management environment of marine archaeological resources in England, Oxley & O’Regan (2001) conclude that national guidelines need to come to terms with the fact that underwater cultural heritage “transcends environmental boundaries and
historically derived administrative limits” (p. 24). Current English policy relies heavily on a voluntary approach to heritage management, making the monitoring of use of underwater resources difficult. They cite a hopeful case of a local organization taking the lead in a push for comprehensive, national vision for the management of underwater cultural heritage (p. 12). They also note that England is behind its fellow countrymen in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in implementing a national strategy, as underwater cultural heritage is handled by a single agency in each of these countries (Cadw, Historic Scotland, and the Environment & Heritage Service, respectively). The situation in the United States is no better. In a recent article, Street (2006) outlines the current legislative environment that frames the management of Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) in national waters. He describes the three regimes under which this management falls: the General Maritime Law, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act and the Marine Sanctuaries Act (p. 468). The first delineates the laws of salvage and finds. Passed in 1789, it is the least friendly to current valuations of shipwrecks as cultural resources and more accommodating to the interests of the commercial salvaging industry. The latter two regimes are of more recent vintage and have proven more amenable to the aims of cultural resource management. All three tend to focus on shipwrecks and “[ignore] other submerged archaeological sites” (p. 468). The author concludes that the current regulatory regime in the U.S. is neither coordinated nor holistic and is “inadequate to govern UCH” (p. 475). In contrast to Oxley & O’Regan’s proposal for the UK, Street proposes a management approach based on the devolution of management of resources within 3 nautical miles (NM) of the shore to the state-level, while giving the federal government more control over resources located up to 24 NM from shore, all without intruding on the domain of applicable international laws. 12
Noting the arbitrariness of the nautical mile standards in American legal regimes governing UCH, Elia (2000) suggests a three-prong approach that includes replacing the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act with a more comprehensive legal regime that extends outward to the Economic Extension Zone (EEZ), generally 200 NM from shore, with equal application of the law to all sites within this zone (p. 54). Further addressing the issue of UCH management beyond the current regulatory reach of 24 NM, Smith & Couper (2003) emphasis the need to consider protection of resources lying beyond the EEZ, in an area called the Deep Seabed (p. 27). They encourage the preservation community to establish a dialogue with the commercial salvage industry so that resources located outside territorial waters are not destroyed. The precarious situation of sites on the Deep Seabed is made even more urgent by mining and commercial fishing operations, both of which have the potential to do great harm to shipwreck sites. As noted previously, Northern Ireland’s existing legal regime and management plan is more holistic than that of the UK, or of the US for that matter, and is viewed with satisfaction in the preservation community. Williams (2001) displays this satisfaction in his discussion of the Environment and Heritage Services’ (EHS) role in managing Northern Ireland’s maritime heritage. As in Elia’s (2000) discussion of the US legal regime, Williams (2001) expresses concern about the effect of deep seabed activities on underwater sites. While not all of these activities are currently practiced within Northern Ireland’s coastal waters, Williams outlines an archaeological response to each of the potential activities (oil and gas exploration and extraction, mineral dredging, cable and pipe laying, dredging of shipping channels, commercial fishing, and fish and shellfish farming) (p. 5). Notable in his overview is the optimism he holds regarding Northern Ireland’s policy environment and the potential for compromise and mutual 13
agreement that can result from a holistic management plan incorporating the goals of cultural heritage preservation. In addition to the local and national arenas discussed thus far, the United Nations also has a role to play in the management of underwater cultural heritage. Jeffrey (2004b) considers this possibility for a group of sunken World War II ships and aircraft in Chuuk Lagoon in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The popularity of this site with scuba divers exacerbates the problems already inherent in managing an
Figure 3 - Archaeologists survey the upside-down wreck of a Japanese fighter plane in Chuuk Lagoon (from Jeffrey 2004b)
underwater site as vast as this through the authority of an impoverished country like the FSM. The current legislative regime under which the site is governed consists of local state (Chuukese) law and FSM national law, as well as the United States’ National
Historic Preservation Act (FSM was an American protectorate until 1986 and still maintains ties through economic aid and military bases) (p. 110, 117). UNESCO World Heritage Listings for underwater sites are uncommon (as are listings for sites in the Pacific region) and, ironically, Jeffrey sees the site’s current management problems as an impediment to its qualification for the World Heritage Listing. This highlights the need for competent local management of heritage sites as even a World Heritage Listing is not “a magic wand that solves management problems” (p. 118). In another paper on Chuuk Lagoon, Jeffrey (2004a) proposes a possibility for better local management, which may in turn allow for Chuuk’s inclusion in the World Heritage Listing. Noting the diverse ways in which the various stakeholders (American, Japanese and Chuukese) of the Chuuk Lagoon site interpret the site in terms of their own history, Jeffrey suggests that by including all of these stakeholders in the management process would prove to be the “most efficient approach” to management of the site. Two other studies on the management of shipwreck sites (Cuthill 1998; Kaoru & Hoagland 1994) look at the pragmatism of an approach that involves all stakeholders and considers alternate methods of valuation of cultural resources. Kaoru & Hoagland compare their approach, consisting of various kinds of non-market valuation, to the assessment of historic resources as similar to that used to assess natural resources (p. 196). This is promising given the utility of non-market valuation in natural resource management (e.g. Hall, Hall & Murray 2002; Arin & Kramer 2002) and Kaoru & Hoagland (1994) conclude that non-market valuation of shipwrecks is essential to balancing the needs of stakeholders, otherwise there will be “too much treasure hunting or too much preservation” (p. 210). Cuthill’s (1999) study continues on the theme of 15
stakeholder collaboration, utilizing an “action research approach” that “focuses on the involvement of, and collaboration with, stakeholders” (p. 36). He even proposes the inclusion of descendants of those who perished in shipwrecks in the management process (a very compassionate and thoughtful suggestion) (p. 44). Like Kaoru & Hoagland, Cuthill recommends considering the different valuations stakeholders place on shipwrecks, including historical, scientific, recreational, educational and economic significance (p. 40-41). One final note on underwater cultural heritage concerns the preservation priorities of the historic preservation and archaeological communities themselves. The consensus in these professions is that in situ preservation of historic shipwrecks is the preferred method. Oxley (2001) notes that management of shipwrecks in situ is more cost-effective than preserving them outside of the marine environment (p. 418). Consistent with this Jeffrey (2004b) notes that the recently adopted UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage prefers in situ preservation as does the NOAA in its administration of sites protected by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (Street 2006:474). The common exception to the rule is when the site is threatened by destruction, in which case excavation is the option of last resort (p. 474). Breaking with the consensus, Vrana & Mahoney (1995) suggest that not all historic sites need to be preserved. Recognizing that the recreational and resulting economic significance of historic shipwrecks are of importance leads, once again, to the question of how to balance the often competing needs of stakeholders. Vrana & Mahoney question whether all sites consisting of underwater cultural heritage are necessary to achieve the needs of the scientific community and proposes that shipwreck sites that do not meet “significance criteria, or for which numerous substitutes exist to 16
answer important research questions” (p. 178) should be preserved solely for recreational use. While the historic and cultural uniqueness of all heritage sites might cast doubt on this proposal, it is an interesting take on the multi-stakeholder approach to managing historic underwater resources.
Existing approaches to the management of coastal cultural heritage vary by type of resource (ancient coastal middens, historic waterfronts, shipwrecks), by location (on land or underwater) and by legal and administrative jurisdiction (local, national, international). Comprehensiveness and diligence of management programs also vary between national jurisdictions and between local jurisdictions existing within the same country (e.g. in the case of the United Kingdom, where England’s program, though admirable, is outshined by Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s programs). The challenges to effective cultural resource management in coastal areas arise primarily from the ad hoc manner in historic and archaeological sites are managed under the current policy environment. This problem is present nearly worldwide. From the literature reviewed in this paper, it would appear that to address the issue of ineffective management of coastal cultural resources a two pronged approach is necessary: 1) broaden and strengthen the legal and administrative regimes at the national level to allow for the unequivocal administration of local management plans, and 2) seek to include the participation of all possible stakeholders and to recognize the multiple valuations that stakeholders place on coastal historic and archaeological resources. This kind of collaborative and holistic management approach framed by a strong supra-local policy regime is desperately needed to protect cultural heritage that is increasingly 17
threatened by more severe global weather events, a surge in preference for coastal living and tourist activities, and the greater access afforded to underwater tourists and largescale industry by technological advances.
Arin, T. & R.A. Kramer. (2002). Divers' Willingness to Pay to Visit Marine Sanctuaries: An Exploratory Study. Ocean and Coastal Management, 45:171-183. Callegari, F. (2003). Sustainable development prospects for Italian coastal cultural heritage: a Ligurian case study. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4:49-56. Carrasco, A.R., O. Ferreira, A. Matias & J.A. Dias. (2007). Historic Monuments Threatened by Coastal Hazards at Boca do Rio, Algarve, Portugal. Coastal Management, 35: 163-179. Cassar, M. (2003). A project for the integrated management of protected coastal areas in Malta. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 9: 73-80. Clark C. & D. Pinder. (1999). Naval heritage and the revitalisation challenge: lessons from the Venetian Arsenale. Ocean & Coastal Management, 42:933-956. Coastal Zone Management Centre (CZM-Centre). (2001). The challenge of integrated management. Retrieved 1 July 2007, from NetCoast.nl. Craig, R.K. (2004). Europe’s Network of Marine Protected Areas: Legal and policy Challenges for Coastal Biodiversity Protection. Proceedings of Littoral 2004, 7th International Symposium. Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Science and Policy, Volume 1: 170-174. Cuthill, M. (1998). Managing the Yongala Historic Shipwreck. Coastal Management, 26 (1): 33-46. 18
Dean, C. (1999). Against the Tide. The Battle for America's Beaches. New York, New York: Columbia University Press. Doody, J.P. (2004). Sea cliffs a neglected European habitat? Proceedings of Littoral 2004, 7th International Symposium. Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Science and Policy, Volume 2: 578-584. Elia, R.J. (2000). US protection of underwater cultural heritage beyond the territorial sea. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 29(1):43-56. English Heritage. (2003). Coastal Defence and the Historic Environment English Heritage Guidance. Swindon, England: English Heritage. Fitzpatrick, S.M., M. Kappers and Q. Kaye. (2006). Coastal erosion and site destruction in Carricou, West Indies. Journal of Field Archaeology, 31(3): 251-262. Georgia Ports Authority & Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (1998). Savannah Harbor expansion project, Chatham County, Georgia, and Jasper County, South Carolina. EPA number: 980363F. Hall, D.C., J.V. Hall & S.N. Murray. (2002). Contingent Valuation of Marine Protected Areas: Southern California Rocky Intertidal Ecosystems. Natural Resource Modeling, 15(3):335-368. Jeffrey, B. (2004a). World War II Shipwrecks in Truk Lagoon: The Role of Interest Groups. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 1(2):51-67. Jeffrey, B. (2004b). World War II Underwater Cultural Heritage Site in Truk Lagoon: Considering a Case for World Heritage Listing. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 33(1):106-121. Kaoru, Y. and P. Hoagland (1994). The value of historic shipwrecks: conflicts and management. Coastal Management, 22: 195-213. 19
Lowe, C. & S. Boardman. (1998). Coastal erosion and the archaeological assessment of an eroding shoreline at St. Boniface Church, Papa Westray, Orkney. Edinburgh, Scotland: Historic Scotland. Maurício, A.M., A.M.G. Pacheco, P.S.D. Brito, B. Castro, C. Figueiredo & L. Aires-Barros. An ionic conductivity-based methodology for monitoring salt systems in monument stones. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6:287-293. Muckelroy, K. (1978). Maritime archaeology. London, England: Cambridge University Press. NOAA. (2000). Summary Report: Town Meeting on America's Coastal Future: Using the Internet to Promote Coastal Stewardship. Washington, D.C.: National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration, National Oceans Service. Oxley, I. (2001). Towards the integrated management of Scotland's cultural heritage: examining historic shipwrecks as marine environmental resources. World Archaeology, 32(3): 413-426. Oxley, I. & D. O'Regan. (2001). The marine archaeological resource. Institute of Field Archaeologists, Paper No. 4. Reading, England: Institute of Field Archaeologists. Parnell, K.E. & H. Kofoed-Hansen. (2001). Wakes from Large High-Speed Ferries in Confined Coastal Waters: Management Approaches with Examples from New Zealand and Denmark. Coastal Management, 29: 217-237. Pendelton, E.A., E.R. Thieler & S.J. Williams. (2005). Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Sea-Level Rise. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2005-1058. Pinder, D. (2003). Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK coastal zone. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4:35-47. 20
Przywolnik, K. (2002). Coastal sites and severe weather in Cape Range peninsula, northwest Australia. Archaeology in Oceania, 37:137-152. Riley, R. (1999). A model-based approach to unraveling naval defence heritage: supplyand demand-side issues in Portsmouth’s coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal Management, 42:891-908. Savouret, E. (2004). When coastal erosion accelerates the transformation of historical sites into memorial places: 1944/2004: Evolution of Pointe du Hoc – Landing Beaches of Normandy - France. Proceedings of Littoral 2004, the 7th International Symposium, Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Science and Policy, Volume 2: 731-732. Smith, H.D. & A.D. Couper. (2003). The management of the underwater cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4:25-33. Street, T. (2006). Underwater Cultural Heritage Policies of the United States Coastal Zone. Coastal Management, 34: 467-480. Téllez-Duarte, M.A. (1993). Cultural Resources as a Criterion in Coastal Zone Management: The Case of Northwestern Baja California, Mexico. In Coastal Management in Mexico: the Baja California Experience, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1993. (ed. J. L. Fermaaan Almada). American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 137-147. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1997). Georgia coastal management program; Brantley, Bryan, Camden, Charlton, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, and Wayne Counties, Georgia. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia. 21
Vrana, K.J. and E.M. Mahoney (1995). Impacts on underwater cultural resources: diagnosing change and prescribing solutions. In Underwater Archaeology: Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Washington, D.C., January 1995 (ed. P. Forsythe Johnston). Tucson, AZ: Society for Historical Archaeology. pp. 176-180. Williams, B. (2001). Commercial developments and their impact on maritime heritage: the Northern Ireland experience. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 30(1):5-11. World Heritage Convention (WHC). (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris, France. Retrieved 11 July 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?