Content uploaded by Emilia Guisado Pintado
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emilia Guisado Pintado on Mar 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Coastal Research SI 75 1097 - 1101 Coconut Cree
k
,
Florida 2016
____________________
DOI: 10.2112/SI75-220.1 received 15 October, 2015; accepted in
revision 15 January, 2015.
*Corresponding author: esguipin@upo.es
©
Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2016
Ecosystem Services and Their Benefits as Coastal
Protection in Highly Urbanised Environments
Emilia Guisado-Pintado†*, Fatima Navas‡ and Gonzalo Malvárez‡
†
Coastal Environments Research Group, Universidad
Pablo de Olavide of Sevilla. CP 41013, Spain
esguipin@upo.es
‡
Physical Geography Area. Universidad Pablo de
Olavide of Sevilla. CP 41013, Spain
ABSTRACT
Guisado-Pintado, E.; Navas, F., and Malvárez, G., 2016. Ecosystem Services and Their Benefits as Coastal
Protection in Highly Urbanised Environments. In: Vila-Concejo, A.; Bruce, E.; Kennedy, D.M., and McCarroll, R.J.
(eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Coastal Symposium (Sydney, Australia). Journal of Coastal Research,
Special Issue, No. 75, pp. 1097 - 1101. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
Coastal hazards from hydro-meteorological events such as flooding, shoreline erosion, storm surges and sea level
rise, have been widely studied not least because they can have significant impacts on human activities and assets,
adversely affecting the economy, well-being and safety of coastal communities. Coastal hazards are a major concern
for local populations and authorities and recently European Union Directives and Horizon 2020 strategies have
focussed on building a common framework to manage those events, to take adequate and coordinated measures to
reduce it. As a result, the quantification and evaluation of ecosystem services provided by coastal systems for human
populations have begun to be incorporated into policy and decision-making processes in order to preserve both
ecosystems and the benefits these offer. Notwithstanding the considerable progress that has been made in recent
years, successful delivery of indicators to evaluate and map the Coastal Protection ecosystem service at adequate
spatial scale is still uncommon. In this paper existing indicators at a European scale for Coastal Protection service
(capacity, flow and benefit) are adapted and applied to a coastal area in southern Spain where urban and tourism
activities are the main drivers whilst coastal exposure to hazards is increasing. Results highlight the importance of
scale and resolution when approaching coastal systems and the importance of using accurate and local-regional sets
of data. Further, the need to understand the spatial and temporal variability of the Coastal Protection service and the
non-linearity response is shown to be essential when developing coastal and marine management strategies.
ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Coastal hazards, habitats, vulnerability, Cascade model.
INTRODUCTION
Natural hazards have become important forcing variables in
their interaction with human activity (coastal vulnerability)
and particularly in their negative impacts on the economy and
the safety of coastal communities (McLaughlin and Cooper,
2010). The increasing impact of flood events, rising sea-levels
and storm erosion effects is currently a major concern for
coastal populations and authorities.
Growing demands placed on coastal and marine resources
from various economic sectors have also led to habitat loss,
pollution, over-exploitation and a general degradation of
ecosystems (EEA, 2010). Recent policies and regulations (EU
Biodiversity Strategy, Flood Directive) have clearly stated the
need for inclusion of Ecosystem Services (ES) assessments in
socio-economic analysis such as Cost-Benefits appraisals and
risk reduction programmes. Ecosystem Services are usually
viewed as providing benefits from natural systems to human
well-being or as the actual benefits derived from nature to
people (MEA, 2005). Coastal and marine ecosystems are
particularly linked to the Coastal Protection (CP) service,
namely the natural defence of the coastal zone against
inundation, erosion from waves, storms and sea level rise,
which contribute up to 77% of the global ecosystem service
value (Martinez et al., 2007). Hence, CP can be interpreted as
the ecosystem’s capacity to supply natural hazard and erosion
regulation (MEA, 2005), as well as the actual benefits derived
from moderation of extreme events, regulation of water flows
and erosion prevention (TEEB, 2010). Therefore, CP is a
combination of the above services that act over a narrow
coastal strip where both the drivers (waves, storms, sea-level
rise) and the protection elements (geomorphology, emerged
and submerged habitats) are interconnected.
Despite the considerable progress made in recent years,
with wide-ranging assessments being conducted of the CP
benefits from specific coastal ecosystems such as mangroves
and estuaries (Barbier et al., 2011), wetlands (Costanza et al.,
2008) and protection against tsunamis (Danielsen et al.,
2005), data and methods are still somewhat limited (Barbier,
2012). Compared to terrestrial ecosystem assessments, there is
a low resolution and/or paucity of spatially explicit
information on complex coastal and marine environments.
This therefore presents a challenging problem when
quantifying functions and benefits (Maes et al., 2012). Apart
from a recent proposal of CP indicators at a continental
European scale (Liquete et al., 2013) and the INVEST model,
a decision support tool for local ecosystem mapping (Guerry
et al., 2012), little progress has been made in providing a
www.JCRonline.org
www.cerf-jcr.org
Ecosystem services and their benefits as coastal protection in highly urbanised environments
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016
1098
holistic approach to ES benefits in which all components of
the continuum coastal-marine ecosystems are considered and
further mapped. While different approaches can be considered
in the assessment of ES, the Cascade model (CM) is the one
adopted here, as it links both the biodiversity to human well-
being through the flow of ES (Haines-Young and Potschin,
2010) and it supports the representation of ES at various
scales (e.g. Maes et al., 2012; Liquete et al., 2013). The CM
approach considers the Capacity of an ecosystem to deliver a
service based on its internal structure (e.g. presence of sand
dunes or cliffs), the exposure to processes (e.g. waves, tides,
currents) and its ecological functions (e.g. wave attenuation,
sediment redistribution). Those functions eventually can
provide a Flow of ecosystem services (e.g. erosion protection)
which might contribute to human well-being and thus could
be rendered into specific Benefits (e.g. contribution to safety,
reduction of risk). Additionally, benefits can be translated into
monetary values, for example, the estimated damage from a
storm event.
In this paper, the ecosystem service CP- Coastal Protection
is assessed through the calculation of quantitative indicators
and their metrics for a touristic area on the southern coast of
Spain. The indicators (initially proposed at European scale by
Liquete et al., 2013) have been significantly adapted to a local
scale in order to consider key physical and socio-economic
specificities of the study area.
STUDY AREA
The Costa del Sol, located along the Andalusia
Mediterranean coast of Southern Spain, is a renowned global
tourist destination, being one of the most visited places in
Spain. The peak of tourist infrastructure development took
place in the 1960’s, resulting in a significant population
growth and a corresponding transformation of the coastal
landscape. This has resulted in irreversible environmental
impacts from the aggressive urbanisation undertaken (Guisado
et al., 2013). However, despite the fact that in 2012, the
population of the littoral area was around 520,000 inhabitants,
with an annual average increment of >20,000 inhabitants/year
(IECA, 2013), well-preserved natural spots and low-urbanised
areas still remain. The study area comprises eight coastal
municipalities (Figure 1) that encompasses a coastal stretch of
some 107 km long with a WSW-ENE orientation. The
proximity of the Sierras to the Mediterranean coastline and
the presence of a narrow continental platform with a
predominance of soft coastal cliffs results in coastal plains
associated with river mouths and narrow beaches where
coastal dunes are rarely found. Nevertheless, at some spots
medium to wide beaches are backed by small aeolian planes
and other minor sedimentary formations. The dune field at
Cabopino is probably the best representative of this type of
environment. Seabed habitats are mainly composed of
medium to fine sands, where seagrass meadows and other
hard substrata are more scattered, only relevant to the west of
Marbella. With a microtidal range, the wave action is the main
hydrodynamic agent. Beach profiles are quite steep and the
resulting surf zone is generally steep and narrow, which marks
a concentration of wave action within a narrow fringe
(Malvárez, 2012). These physical attributes along with a
dense urban and touristic coastal area makes the Costa del Sol
a highly vulnerable area, where flooding events are enhanced
by the presence of narrow and steep rivers, and erosion effects
by storms are of major concern to local and regional
authorities, and population in general.
METHODS
For the purpose of this research, the coastal zone is defined
as the area potentially affected by extreme hydrodynamic
conditions and includes all coastal and marine systems
(excluding habitats far inland). The coastal area is then
delimited by the 100 m depth isobath (with a maximum extent
of 1 nautical mile offshore from the territorial waters baseline
following the Water Framework Directive) and 100 m height
topographic contour given the existence of steep slopes
(continental platform and coastal cliffs). From these limits, 76
calculation units (CU) of 1 km length perpendicular to the
coast were delineated for geoprocessing and indicator
calculation.
Following the CM approach and guided by previous studies
(Liquete et al., 2013, CMA, 2011), the following indicators
are proposed to assess CP along the Costa del Sol. The
Inherent Capacity (CPcap) as the natural ability of coastal and
marine ecosystems to protect against natural hazards (flood,
erosion) based on their ecological and geological
characteristics. The Natural exposure (CPexp) defined as the
predicted need of protection based on oceanographic and
climatic conditions (waves, tides, etc.). Then finally, Human
demand (CPdem), as the calculated need of coastal
populations for protection based on the presence of residents,
tourists and assets. The CP service flow (combination of
CPcap and CPexp) is understood as the potential of an
ecosystem to deliver a service (capacity) and the need of
doing it (exposure). On the other hand, the combination of the
Cpflow and the specific demand (CPdem) of a given coastal
area provides an indication of the benefit (CPben) for society.
Variables used and Indicators calculation
The spatial scale (here mainly local and municipal)
determines the resolution and complexity that should be
considered and so variables were fully adapted using locally
updated data and based on specificities of the Costa del Sol.
For CPcap, habitats and natural structures (Table 1) were
selected following expert-based ranking (in agreement with
previous studies from Pendleton et al., 2010; Liquete et al.,
2013), and further ordered into a meaningfully sequence
based on their influence and role in coastal protection.
Additionally, for these qualitative variables (geomorphology,
seabed and emerged habitats) weighting values were applied
in order to assess their protection capacity in the study area.
The resulting indicator is defined as CPcap= 0.33geo + 0.25
slope + 0.21 seahab + 0.21 emerhab.
Regarding the CPexp, given that tide is insignificant in the
Mediterranean (average of 0.8m), the influence of waves
(especially high energy events), rising sea level and erosion
impacts are very important. The exposure indicator is defined
as CPexp= 0.29 wav + 0.29 ero + 0.23 slr - 0.19 tide.
Ecosystem services and their benefits as coastal protection in highly urbanised environments
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016
1099
Furthermore, a variable to account for tourism demand
(hotel beds/coastal length) was also considered, resulting in
CPdem= 0.35 pop+0.25 inf +0.15 art + 0.10 her+ 0.25 tour.
Table 1. List of variables, data sources and geo-processes considered in the calculation of Coastal Protection indicators of CPcap, CPexp and CPdem.
Variable Database Reference Scale Geoprocess
Bathymetry
Topography Topo-bathymetry integrated model from land-sea. CMA-REDIAM, 2010 20x20 m
Delimitation of study
site and mean slope
(slope) CPcap
Geomorphology Coastal shoreline geomorphology and defence works. CMA-REDIAM, 2000 1:5000 Weighted average
based on coastal
protection (geo, seahab,
emerhab) CPcap
Seabed habitats Seabed morphology: ecocartography from Málaga. MMA, 2005 1:5000
Emerged Habitats EU Corine Land Cover (CLC) dataset from 2006. EEA, 2012 100 m
Waves
Modelled data (SWAN) from buoy records (WANA 2011011) of
maximum wave height for the decade 2000-2010.
SWAN (Booij, 1999);
Puertos del Estado, 2010. 20 m Mean significant wave
height (wav) CPexp
Erosion rates
Coastal Vulnerability Index. Indicator of Erosion trend measured
from 1956-2005 (m/yr).
CMA, 2011 1:100.000 Mean Erosion rate
(ero) CPexp
Sea level trend Global grid of mean sea level trends (satellite altimetry 1992-
2010).
Ssalto/Duacs /AVISO;
CNES, 2010 1/3 deg. Mean sea level trend
(slr) CPexp
Tidal range Tidal amplitude from M2 calculated for 1993- 2014 for Málaga. Puertos del Estado, 2015 Mean tidal range (tide)
CPexp
Population
density Spatial distribution of Andalusian population in 2013. IECA/REDIAM, 2013. 250 m Population density
(pop) CPdem
Infrastructures Infrastructures in the coastal zone represented by the regional
roads network. IECA, 2011 1:100.000 Infrastructures density
(inf) CPdem
Artificial surface EU Corine Land Cover (CLC) dataset from 2006. EEA, 2012 100 m % artificial surface
(art) CPdem
Natural Heritage Natural protected areas, Red Natura 2000 and Biosphere Reserves. IECA/REDIAM, 2015. 1:10.000 % nat heritage (her)
CPdem
Tourism demand Socio-economic Coastal Vulnerability Index. Indicator for
touristic accommodation by coastal length (hotel, beds). CMA, 2011 1:100.000 Mean Touristic density
(tour) CPdem
Note: Further information on variables used and full references can be found in this link (http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2389.1284).
A total amount of 13 biophysical variables (Table 1) were
normalised and weighted, based on minima and maxima after
aggregation within each CU. Resulting values are
dimensionless and thus have no meaning in absolute terms but
are designed for comparative analysis. For all indicators
positive linear relationships between variables were assumed
based on weights, except for the tide as it’s considered to be
defensive since it builds a protective buffer zone (lower
values of CPexp). In addition, human structures (e.g. ports)
are not taken into consideration in the assessment of
ecosystem services as they cannot be considered natural
systems. RESULTS
Three qualitative indicators (CPcap, CPexp and Cpdem)
ranked as low, medium and high based on 33rd and 66th
percentile, were calculated and mapped along the 107 km of
Costa del Sol. Lower values of CPcap, less capacity of
adaptation to potential changes, are found around urban
beaches of the municipalities of Estepona, Marbella and Mijas
and are driven mainly by low values of geo (artificial beaches)
and emerhab (open spaces with no vegetation). Conversely,
high values are due to the combination of geo (well-developed
beaches with dune systems or cliffs), the presence of seabed
habitats with capacity to disrupt water movement (seagrass
meadows, rock substrata), and are found around Cabopino and
western of Punta de la Doncella, where valuable coastal
ecosystems still persist (Figure 1a).
Across the study area, CPexp is mainly determined by
waves and erosion rates (greater around ports and urban
beaches) and to a lesser extent by mean sea level trends which
increase towards the E. Therefore, lower values are found to
the E of Marbella (around Cabopino) which is both sheltered
from eastern storms (less exposed) and represents a
dissipative environment, whereas the eastern and more
exposed coastal strip from Mijas to Torremolinos shows
higher CPexp values. Population density (that peaks in Mijas)
and the presence of artificial surfaces (art) are the main
drivers for higher values of CPdem encountered in Puerto
Banús and the city of Marbella. Along the East part, where
49% of the coast has been deeply transformed, the tourism
demand variable reaches the greatest values (around 60,000
touristic beds in 2014) and thus determines Cpdem values.
Low values are scattered along the Ensenada de Marbella-
Cabopino and from Estepona to Manilva. The joint effect of
the capacity, exposure and demand affect ecosystem dynamics
and functions, and thus the services (flow and benefit) that
they can provide. The CPflow is found to be ‘satisfactory’ in
36% of the coast (CPcap=CPexp) and ‘abundant’
(CPcap>CPexp) across 30% of the study area (mainly around
Cabopino and W of Estepona). However, around 33% of the
Costa del Sol (mainly eastern municipalities) falls into the
‘Deficient’ category (CPcap<CPexp) and thus are less stable
in terms of resilience as they lack sufficient protection
capability under changing scenarios of coastal hazards.
Ecosystem services and their benefits as coastal protection in highly urbanised environments
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016
1100
Finally, the Coastal Protection benefit for society is
determined as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘abundant’ along 60% of the
area, while 39% is categorised as ‘Deficient’ (Figure 1b) due
to the fact that the demand is greater than the capacity of the
ecosystem to provide the services (Puerto Banús surroundings
and scattered sites alongside the eastern municipalities).
Figure 1. a) CP indicators of Capacity, Exposure and Demand and main statistics of variables. b) CP indicators of Flow and Benefit.
DISCUSSION
Natural ecosystems play an important role in hazards
regulation and risk protection, which impacts have been
increasing as population density and coastal and marine
demands increase. However, the capacity of the ecosystems to
provide services and their role of protection under extreme
events is still poorly understood and thus benefits are
undervalued or not considered in decision-making processes.
Coastal management and prevention programmes, however,
can no doubt be improved if the protective role of natural
ecosystems and their relationship with Human, Social and
Built capitals are considered (Pérez Maqueo et al., 2007).
In this approximation, the ES assessment evidences the
deficient coastal zones in terms of coastal protection services.
Thus, results can drive actions oriented to increasing
resilience along low capacity areas with poor flow where
significant erosion and flood problems occur (33% of the
coast). Better management of low CPbenefit areas (39%)
would also result where demand should be controlled in order
to enhance ecosystem function for coastal hazards response.
Different areas along the Costa del Sol, with similar
patterns and exposure to natural coastal hazards, have varying
levels of capacity, depending on past socio-economic and
urban development decisions, and on the status of their
natural capital (ecosystem and habitats). Moreover, as CP
varies in time (storms frequency, vegetation status) and space
(heterogeneity across geomorphology and seabed and
emerged habitats) non-lineal protection services against
natural hazards should be considered when designing
management plans and conservation strategies. Further,
synergetic processes and complex relationships between
coastal and marine variables will require cognisance of the
entire land-sea continuum to guarantee the maintenance of
functions and services. Here the Capacity and Flow indicators
represent the current natural provision of coastal protection in
the area, based on their geophysical attributes. However,
given the accelerated degradation of ecosystems and facing
the future consequences of climate change and growing
coastal population, those areas with “covered” CPflow should
also need to be included in adaptive strategies. Certainly,
through this approach (CM) the capacity, exposure and
demand of ecosystems, as well as their flow and benefit,
could easily be translated into information that can ultimately
b)
a)
Ecosystem services and their benefits as coastal protection in highly urbanised environments
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016
1101
drive institutional and social responses (Daily et al., 2009).
Whilst maps of CP benefits show where future research and
actions should be focused in protection of important areas,
CPcap and CPdem provide an insight into vulnerable zones
for potential intervention action (Cabopino dune system
among others). Although some attempts have been made to
integrate the economic valuation of the ecosystem, this still
remains controversial and complex as it requires many
assumptions to me made (e.g. ES provide many benefits yet
most of them have no market value) and thus the translation
of ecosystem values and their benefits into monetary terms,
remains a huge challenge. Although in our approach the
indicator of benefit could be used as a proxy for this (Liquete
et al., 2013), in agreement with Heal (2000) we believe that
the key issue is not to value ecosystem services in economic
terms but to demonstrate the incentives and benefits for their
protection.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present work, an approximation of coastal
ecosystem services, including the provision of meaningful
cartography of CP at adequate spatial scale, and the
protective role from natural hazards is presented. Results
enhance the inclusion of Ecosystem services’ assessments
in coastal management plans (ICZM strategies) as well as
helping support current and future Directives
implementation (e.g. Floods). The characterisation of CP
indicators could help to drive strategies and actions as they
are indicative of needed protection and vulnerable areas for
intervention. However, further research should consider
future scenarios of climate change, population and
economic trends and their influence in the provision of the
Coastal Protection service.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank goes to C. Liquete and D.J. for their advices and
to the Regional Government of Andalusia (CMA, IECA &
REDIAM) for data provision.
LITERATURE CITED
Barbier. E., Hacker, S., Kennedy, C., Koch, E., Stier, A. and
Silliman, B., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal
ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2), 169-
193.
Barbier, E., 2012. Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal
and Marine Ecosystem Services. Review on Environmental
Economics and Policy 6 (1), 1-19.
CMA, 2011. Análisis preliminar de la vulnerabilidad de la
costa de Andalucía a la potencial subida del nivel del mar
asociado al cambio climático. Edited by Regional
Government of Andalusia (Spain), 154p.
Costanza, R., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M.L., Sutton, P.,
Anderson, S.J. and Mulder, K., 2008. The value of coastal
wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37 (4), 241–248.
Daily, G., Polasky, D., Golfstein J., Kareiva P. et al., 2009.
Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver.
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 7, 21-28.
Danielsen, F., Sorensen, M.K., Olwig, M.F., Selvam, V.,
Parish, F. et al., 2005. The Asian Tsunami: a protective role
for coastal vegetation. Science, 310, 643.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2010. 10 Messages
for Coastal Ecosystems. Office for Official Publications of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 17 pp.
Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Arkema, K.K., Bernhardt,
J.R., Guannel, G., Kim, C. et al., 2012. Modeling benefits
from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and
marine spatial planning. Intern. J. of Biodiversity Science
and Ecosystem Services Management, 8 (1-2), 1–15.
Guisado, E., Malvárez, G. and Navas, F., 2013.
Morphodynamic environments of the Costa del Sol, Spain.
Journal of Coastal Research, SI 65, 500-505.
Haines-Young, R.H., and Potschin, M.P. 2010. The links
between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-
being. In: D. Raffaelli, C. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology:
A New Synthesis. Ecological Reviews Series, CUP,
Cambridge, pp. 110–139.
Heal, G. 2000. Valuing ecosystems services. Ecosystems (3),
24-30.
IECA, 2013. Annual population density for Andalucia.
Cartography and Statistics Institute of the Regional
Government of Andalusia. Spain. Public dataset.
Liquete, C., Zuliana, G., Delgado, I., Stips, A and Maes, J.
2013a. Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem
service in Europe. Ecological Indicators, 30.205–217.
Maes, J., Egoha, B., Willemena, L., Liquete, C. and
Vihervaarab, P., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for
policy support and decision making in the European Union.
Ecosystem Services, (1), Issue 1, 31–39
Malvárez, G.C., 2012. The history of Shoreline Stabilisation
on the Spanish Costa del Sol. In: Cooper A. and Pilkey J.
(ed.). Pitfalls of Shoreline Stabilization: Selected Case
Studies. Springer, Netherlands, pp 235.
Martínez, M.L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo,
O., Sutton, P. and Landgrave, R., 2007. The coasts of our
world: ecological, economic and social importance.
Ecological Economics, 63 (2-3), 254–272.
McLaughlin, S. and Cooper, J.A.G., 2010. A multi-scale
coastal vulnerability index: a tool for coastal managers.
Environmental Hazards, 9(3), 233–248.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Our human
planet: summary for decision makers. In: Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, 109 pp.
Pendleton, E.A., Thieler, E.R. and Williams, S.J., 2010.
Importance of coastal change variables in determining
vulnerability to sea- and lake-level change. Journal of
Coastal Research, 26, (1), 176–183.
Pérez-Maqueo, O., Intralawan, A. and Martínez, M.L., 2007.
Coastal disasters from the perspective of ecological
economics. Ecological Economics, 63, (2-3), 273–284.
TEEB., 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
ecological and economic foundation. Kumar P, ed. London
and Washington: Earthscan.
