Beach nourishment: an ecologically sound coastal defence alternative? A review

• Published in: Aquatic conservation Vol. 16; no. 4; pp. 419 - 435
• Main Authors: Speybroeck, Jeroen, Bonte, Dries, Courtens, Wouter, Gheskiere, Tom, Grootaert, Patrick, Maelfait, Jean-Pierre, Mathys, Mieke, Provoost, Sam, Sabbe, Koen, Stienen, Eric W.M., Lancker, Vera Van, Vincx, Magda, Degraer, Steven
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.06.2006; Wiley
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Arthropoda; beach nourishment; beach replenishment; Biological and medical sciences; coastal defence; coastal erosion; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; ecological impact; ecology; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Marine; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking; sandy beaches; Belgium; coastal defence: ecological impact; sandy beaches: ecology; Aquatic environment; coastal erosion; Review; Beaches; beach replenishment; beach nourishment; Environmental protection
• ISSN: 1052-7613; 1099-0755
• DOI: 10.1002/aqc.733

1. Even though beach nourishment is generally considered as an environment‐friendly option for coastal protection and beach restoration, sizeable impacts on several beach ecosystem components (microphytobenthos, vascular plants, terrestrial arthropods, marine zoobenthos and avifauna) are described in the literature, as reviewed in this paper. 2. Negative, ecosystem‐component specific effects of beach nourishment dominate in the short to medium term, with the size of the impact being determined by (1) activities during the construction phase, (2) the quality and (3) the quantity of the nourishment sand, (4) the timing, place and size of project, and (5) the nourishment technique and strategy applied. Over the long term the speed and degree of ecological recovery largely depend on the physical characteristics of the beach habitat, mainly determined by (1) sediment quality and quantity, (2) the nourishment technique and strategy applied, (3) the place and the size of nourishment and (4) the physical environment prior to nourishment. 3. The limited information available on indirect and cumulative ecological effects indicates that these effects cannot be neglected in an overall impact assessment. Hence, for ecologically good practice of beach nourishment it is advised (1) to choose nourishment sands with a sediment composition comparable to that of the natural sediment, (2) to avoid short‐term compaction by ploughing immediately after construction, (3) to execute the nourishment in a period of low beach use by birds and other mobile organisms, (4) to choose a number of smaller projects rather than a single large nourishment project and (5) to select the nourishment technique with respect to the local natural values. 4. In order to allow an objective, scientifically sound, ecological adjustment of future nourishments, research should aim at (1) taking into account the full sandy beach ecosystem, (2) avoiding strategic imperfections in experimental design and (3) elucidating the biological processes behind impact and recovery of all ecosystem components. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.