Environmental Quality Indicators for Recreational Beaches ... - BioOne

Journal of Coastal Research

24

6

1439–1449

West Palm Beach, Florida

November 2008

Environmental Quality Indicators for Recreational Beaches Classification Maria Christina Barbosa de Arau´jo and Monica Ferreira da Costa Laborato´rio de Ecologia e Gerenciamento de Ecossistemas Costeiros e Estuarinos Departamento de Oceanografia da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) Avenida Arquitetura s/n Recife, Pernambuco-Brasil 50740–550 [email protected]

ABSTRACT ´ JO, M.C.B., DE and COSTA, M.F., DA, 2008. Environmental quality indicators for recreational beaches clasARAU sification. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(6), 1439–1449. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Coastal environments might be envisaged as being composed by two interacting subsystems: one natural and the other socioeconomic. This work proposes a system of recreational beaches classification in a rank of four indicators (A for excellent, B for good, C for regular, and D for bad), which can be useful in developing countries, where it is important to promote transfer of scientific information about coastal quality in a simple and useful form and to help identify areas worth preserving and others with potential for more intensive use, provided that the appropriate control is in place. The method analyses 60 parameters grouped into two subsystems (natural and socioeconomic). Each of the 30 natural parameters was assessed based on an attribute scale ranging from the worst (1) to the best (3) quality. For the socioeconomic parameters, only positive or negative categories were attributed. For both subsystems, a scale from 1 (not important) to 3 (very important) was used to indicate the weight of each parameter. The sum of the parameters for each subsystem was used separately to find a score. To classify the beaches, different percentages of the total score were used. The scale ranged from 33 to 100% for the natural subsystem and 0 and 100% for the socioeconomic subsystem. A pilot study was made at nine beach areas (⬃500 m each) of three different uses and development levels (overdeveloped, developed, and underdeveloped). The D indicator did not appear in our results. The best indicators occurred at less developed beach areas. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Environmental indicators, beach classification, recreational beaches, coastal management, checklist, beach users’ preferences.

INTRODUCTION The coastal environment is composed of two strongly interacting and interdependent subsystems: one natural and the other socioeconomic. The main interest of coastal managers is to establish, and maintain, a sustainable relationship of the components in these two subsystems (CENDRERO and FISCHER, 1997). Worldwide, there is an increasing emphasis on the maintenance of healthy coastal environments, mainly through protection of the natural habitats and reduction of pollution levels. According to KLEIN, OSLEEB, and VIOLAT (2004), the economies of coastal states have become highly dependent on revenues generated by coastal tourism and recreational activities and by extension the quality of their beaches. No other natural environment receives more visitors than beaches. Therefore, there is a continuous need for information about these highly valued coastal environments aiming at their control and conservation. The assessment of ecosystem health on a beach is important to express the degree to which its actual state diverges from the ideal, as defined in the local coastal management objectives (PANTUS and DENNISON, 2005) and users’ expectancy and needs. DOI: 10.2112/06-0901.1 received 11 June 07; accepted in revision 23 August 07.

In Agenda 21, the development and implementation of environmental quality criteria, as well the assessment of natural quality and socioeconomic conditions of coastal areas, are emphasised. According to MICALLEF and WILLIAMS (2004), beach classification systems are extremely effective management tools, allowing not only a better-informed option for potential users but also a technique for assessing the aspects that require upgrading to further improve the quality of the recreational product. The analysis of data in a beach register is based on standard parameters and could indicate, for instance, that a particular bathing area should not be promoted for conservation purposes if the area’s natural ecological resources have already been largely degraded, the area indicates high recreational and development potential, or both. Once selected, an adequate set of parameters must be aggregated for better representation of the target beach or set of beaches. The value obtained by aggregating parameters is generally named an indicator or index. Indicators provide an extremely useful way to improve communication, transparency, effectiveness, and accountability in natural resources management. They are a tool used to classify, assess, and compare management programs through time and space. In addition, they are useful for mapping environmental quality and monitoring its change through time. The method is useful because summarises all information (quantitative and qualitative) in a nu-

1440

Arau´jo and Costa

meric form, with easier interpretation. In this way, it can determine whether environmental quality of a coastal area is decreasing or increasing. Indicators should therefore fulfil three main functions: simplification, quantification, and communication (JIMEŃEZ and KONINGSVELD, 2002). A number of different techniques to assess coastal environments have been employed (CENDRERO and FISCHER, 1997; ERGIN et al., 2004; MICALLEF and WILLIAMS, 2004). In each subsystem, parameters do not have the same importance in the evaluation process, but they all have a different poise. For example, is bathing safety less important than water quality? The selection of parameters is a key step in the process of assessment of environments and coastal quality. Also, in many works (CENDRERO and FISCHER, 1997; ERGIN et al., 2006; MICALLEF and WILLIAMS, 2004; MORGAN, 1999a), the choice and weighing of parameters used was based not only on known characteristics of the area but also on preferences and priorities of beach users for several beach aspects. Beach users’ preferences are usually cultural and educationally based. Many different types of metrics can be used to integrate indicators, and the final result depends on the method selected (CENDRERO and FISCHER, 1997; ERGIN et al., 2004; MICALLEF and WILLIAMS, 2004). It is possible to find attributes of the system that are difficult to quantify (e.g., fauna and flora) or are missing (e.g., microbiological contamination), although they provide useful information to characterise environmental conditions. Thus, a combination of the qualitative (‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad,’’ ‘‘presence’’ or ‘‘absence’’) and quantitative (e.g., beach width and area of native vegetation cover) variables has proven to fulfil the basic requirements of indicators systems for environmental quality evaluations. Constant coastal environments assessment and trends analysis are important because, although managers can do little about some environmental problems (e.g., from physical factors), human behaviour and its interactions with the environment can certainly be changed. This work proposes a system of beach classification, which can be used to assess coastal quality regarding both natural and socioeconomic characteristics. Such as system would be useful in developing countries, where it is important to promote efficient transfer of scientific information about coastal quality in a simple and useful form and to help identify areas worth preserving and others with potential for more intensive use, provided that the appropriate control is in place.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Method Description The method for beach, or beach area, classification using ranking of four indicators (A for excellent, B for good, C for regular, and D for bad) of coastal environmental quality was developed through the analysis of 60 parameters (Tables 1 and 2) divided into two subsystems (natural and socioeconomic) of 30 parameters each. The parameters were later classified according to a quantitative (Table 1) and a qualitative (Table 2) analysis. For the two subsystems, aspects were considered regarding beach morphodynamical, chemical, and biological characteristics and human use and facilities (access,

infrastructure, and services). The subsystems were assessed for three types of beaches, classified according to their different development levels and intensity of use as overdeveloped, developed, or underdeveloped (Table 3). Each of the 30 natural parameters was assessed based on an attribute scale ranging from the worst to medium to best quality possible (1 to 2 to 3). For the socioeconomic parameters, only positive (⫹) or negative (⫺) categories were attributed. For both subsystems, a three-point scale from 1 (not important) to 3 (very important) was used to indicate the weight of each parameter and then reflect the importance of each parameter in the overall evaluation (Tables 1 and 2). The choice of each parameter and its weights was determined on the basis of its rating from beach awards systems (National Healthy Beaches Campaign, Seaside Awards, Blue Flag), beach management guidelines (INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION OF UNESCO STAFF, 2003), and beach users’ preferences and priorities surveys (ERGIN et al., 2004; MACLEOD, SILVA, and COOPER, 2002; MORGAN, 1999a, 1999b; NELSON et al., 2000). Some parameters, especially those related to beach morphodynamics (e.g., bathing areas declivity and rip currents), shark attacks, and jellyfish, are not factors that may affect coastal environment quality. Nevertheless, these can compromise the safety of beach users and therefore were considered in the natural subsystem. The total sum of the parameters for each subsystem was used separately to find a final score. For the natural subsystem, this score ranged between 67 and 201. For the socioeconomic subsystem, only the parameters assigned with ⫹ and their respective weight were considered for the final score result. For this second subsystem, the possible scores ranged between 0 and 61. To classify beaches according to coastal environmental quality, different percentages of the total possible score were required for each subsystem. The scale ranged between 33% (67 points) and 100% for the natural subsystem and 0% and 100% for the socioeconomic subsystem (Table 4). The percentage values used to perform the beach classification regarding the natural subsystem are the same for every development level of beaches, because these parameters should be attended by any beach, independent of its degree of development (e.g., bacteriological indicators or oil or tar on the sand or in the water). On the other hand, in the socioeconomic subsystem, the parameters are extremely variable among beaches with different development levels. They vary according to the type and intensity of use of the area. Urban beaches, located into or near overpopulated centres, are more frequented; therefore, there is more demand for infrastructure, facilities, and commercial activity. A large number of the chosen parameters will not be present in less developed or underdeveloped beaches (e.g., public phones and public transport). Thus, the percentage values necessary to classify the beaches among the A, B, C, and D indicators decreased from overdeveloped to underdeveloped beach areas.

Pilot Study The results of the application of the beach assessment method proposed here were obtained during a pilot study.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2008

Beach Indicators

1441

Table 1. Parameters used in the natural quality subsystem. Scale Parameters

Weight

1. Seafront typology (according to the degree of exposure to wave action)12 2. Bathing areas protected by reefs (natural swimming pool)14 3. Shore breaks (large waves breaking directly on the beach)8,10 4. Rip currents8,10,11 5. Bathing areas declivity9 6. Predominant beach and bathing area material9,10 7. Colour of sand or beach sediment8,9 8. Water clarity (can see at min. depth of 1.5m)3,5,8,9 9. Beach width at low tide (backshore ⫹ foreshore)8,9,10 10. Vulnerability to coastal erosion3,4 11. Man-made structures that complicate users’ circulation14 12. Seafront typology (according to the degree of urban occupation)12 13. Built environment (public and/or private)14 14. Occupation of beach habitats14

1

Exposed shore

Half-sheltered shore

Sheltered shore

2

No protection

Low protection

High protection

1

Frequently present

Occasionally present

Absent

2 3 1 1 3 3 3 2

Frequently present Very steep (⬎20⬚) Rocky or muddy Dark ⬍1 m (turbid water) Narrow (⬍30 m) High Substantial amount present Consolidated urbanisation

Occasionally present 5–10⬚ Coarse sand Medium About 2–3 m (clear water) Medium (31–100 m) Medium Little present

Absent ⬍5⬚ Fine or medium sand Light ⬎4 m (very clear water) Wide (⬎100) Low Absent

In urbanisation process

Without urbanisation

On the backshore Occupation of backshore

Beyond backshore Well-preserved backshore

15. Habitat diversity and connectivity (mangroves, coral reefs, etc.) within the ecosystem3 16. Beach vegetation cover3,10

2

On the foreshore Occupation and extreme reduction of foreshore (⫾5 m) Low

Medium

High

2

Absence of vegetation

Backshore with scattered vegetation cover

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

Absent or low Absent or low Poorly preserved Low Strong Clear evidence Heavily contaminated (⬎10) Frequently present Infested

Some variety Some variety Moderately preserved Medium Detectable Some evidence Present, with some accumulations (5 to 10) Occasionally present Occasionally present

Backshore covered by low vegetation and/or shrubs and trees Abundant and varied Abundant and varied Well preserved High Absent No evidence Absent or traces (0 to 4)

2 3

Frequently present ⬍33% appropriate

Occasionally present 34 to 66% appropriate

Absent ⬎67% appropriate

3 2 1

Clear evidence Frequent Frequent

Some evidence Occasional Occasional

No evidence Absent Absent

Biological diversity of the macrobenthic flora 3,9 Biological diversity of the macrobenthic fauna3,9 Ecosystem condition14 Visual quality of the landscape3,8 Unpleasant odours8 Oil or tar on sand or water8,9,10,11,13 Accumulation of marine debris on the beach (items per linear meter on strand line)1,5,6,7,9,10,11 24. Floating debris3,6,8,9,11 25. Macroalgae deposited in water column or on the sand area2,9,10 26. Red tides3,10 27. Bacteriological indicators, no. times per year2,3,7,9,10,11,13 28. Evidence of sewage discharge5,8,9,11,13 29. Shark attacks9,10 30. Jellyfish 9,10

1 2 3

1

2

3

Absent Absent

ARAU´JO and COSTA, 2007 Blue Flag (http://www.blueflag.org) 3 CENDRERO and FISCHER, 1997 4 COUTINHO et al., 1997 5 ERGIN et al., 2004 6 MACLEOD, SILVA, and COOPER, 2002 7 MICALLEF and WILLIAMS, 2004 8 MORGAN, 1999a 9 MORGAN, 1999b 10 National Healthy Beaches Campaign (http://www.ihrc.fiu.edu/nhbc) 11 NELSON et al., 2000 12 PROJETO ORLA, 2002 13 Seaside Awards (http://www.seasideawards.org.uk) 14 Parameters proposed in the present work. 1 2

The data were collected in July 2006 at nine beach areas (⬃500 m each) of three different development and use levels (Table 3): two areas of Boa Viagem beach ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ and Bairro Novo Beach (overdeveloped); Forno da Cal, Campas, and Maria Farinha beaches (developed); Sossego, Porto, and Carneiros beaches (underdeveloped) (Table 5). The nine

beach areas are located along the coast of Pernambuco State in NE Brazil (Figure 1). Boa Viagem Beach is the seafront of Recife City, an urban resort with more than 1.5 million inhabitants (INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATı´STICA, 2000). Bairro Novo Beach is also on the seafront of a large city, Olinda


1442

Arau´jo and Costa

Table 2. Parameters used in the socioeconomic quality subsystem. Parameters

Weight

Toilets and showers in good conditions1,5,6,7,8,9,10 Snack bars or restaurants5,7,8 Hotels2 Litter bins or recycling receptacles1,5,8,10 Adequate parking5,6,8,9 Public telephones within walking distance from beach1,10 7. Public recreation facilities2,6,7,9 8. Facilities for people with disabilities1,8,10 9. Information sources (for locals and foreigners)1 10. Public transport nearby8 11. Paved beach accesses1,5,6,7,10 12. No difference of level from access area to the beach6,8,9 13. Bike lane11 14. Absence of stairs11 15. Boardwalks for sensitive areas (e.g., dunes)11 16. Low level of commercial activity on the solarium4 17. Low intensity of use2,8 18. Low level of noise2,3,7 19. Good visual condition resulting from human use11 20. Public investment in infrastructure1,4 21. Integrated coastal management actions in place11 22. Zonation system (e.g., bathing, surfing, closed area)8,10 23. Environmental conservation area or other kind of formal protection11 24. Environmental certification11 25. Law and regulations enforcement1 26. Lifeguards with adequate safety equipment5,6,7,8,9,10 27. Signalling plates (present and visible)1,5,8 28. Public warning system to promptly alert the public if the beach becomes unsafe1,5,8 29. Absence of domestic animals on the beach1,6,7,8,9,10 30. Low level of crime and/or presence of policemen11

3 2 1 3 2 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

⫹/⫺

1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 2

Blue Flag (http://www.blueflag.org) CENDRERO and FISCHER, 1997 3 ERGIN et al., 2004 4 MACLEOD, SILVA, and COOPER, 2002 5 MICALLEF and WILLIAMS, 2004 6 MORGAN, 1999a 7 MORGAN, 1999b 8 National Healthy Beaches Campaign (http://www.ihrc.fiu.edu/nhbc) 9 NELSON et al., 2000 10 Seaside Awards (http://www.seasideawards.org.uk) 11 Parameters proposed in the present work. 1 2

(390,000 inhabitants; INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATı´STICA, 2000). Olinda and Recife are the main cities in the Recife metropolitan area, the most populated area at the centre of the 187 km of Pernambuco State littoral. Both are partially protected by beach rocks. These beaches are intensely used all year long and present evidence of coastal erosion at some stretches (PEREIRA and JIMEŃEZ, 2007; PEREIRA et al., 2003; SILVA et al., 2006). Campas, Forno da Cal, and Maria Farinha beaches are located at far less developed towns (Tamandare´, Itamaraca´, and Paulista municipalities, respectively) about 100 km away from the main urban centres. These municipalities have populations ranging from 18,000 to 300,000, dispersed over their whole territories, including rural areas. Sossego, Porto, and Carneiros beaches are remote beaches in rural areas of the Itamaraca´, Barreiros, and Tamandare´ municipalities, respectively. These beaches have few perma-

nent residents, where most houses are holiday homes. The Barreiros municipal centre is located further inland and does not interfere at Porto Beach, where the access is limited by private properties. Carneiros and Campas beaches are inserted in two sustainable use conservation units (SNUC, 2000): one terrestrial, Pernambuco State Environmental Protection Area of Guadalupe, and another marine, Federal Marine Environmental Protection Area of Costa dos Corais (PRATES, 2003). According to the Brazilian National System of Conservation Units (SNUC, 2000), conservation units either have full protection, such as biological reserves and national parks, where only the indirect use of natural resources is allowed, or allow sustainable use, such as environmental protection areas and extractive reserves, which allow the sustainable use of part of their natural resources. Porto Beach is also in the marine Environmental Protection Area of Costa dos Corais. This environmental protection area has a total area of 413,563 ha. It was the first federal conservation unit to include coastal reefs and is the largest Brazilian marine conservation unit. It covers mainly marine areas but also the coastal environments and habitats under direct influence of marine waters, including beaches, estuaries, and mangrove forests (PRATES, 2003). The other beaches in the pilot study are not protected environmentally by law. The value attributed to each parameter for both subsystems was obtained through field work, during which each studied beach area was directly observed, and from a compilation of the information available in previously published works. The values for the water bacteriological indicators were obtained from the nearest sampling station monitored by the Pernambuco State Environmental Agency (CPRH). Information for assessing biological diversity of the macrobenthic flora and fauna were obtained from T ABARELLI and SILVA (2002a, 2002b). Parameters that could not be measured based on planned visits to the study site (shark attacks, red tides, and jellyfish occurrence) due to their unpredictable nature were evaluated based on the literature, when available, or official historical records (lifeguard databank in the case of shark attacks and jellyfish). Eventually, in the absence of any literature or other kinds of official record, the local knowledge about each of these parameters was taken into consideration.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Method Analysis The two subsystems can be used separately, depending on the objective of each study. When used separately, the indicator will be somewhat limited but will still guide towards the identification of the main issues in that particular approach. Some of the proposed parameters are difficult to obtain. However, the flexibility in the percentage scale used to obtain each indicator (Table 4) allows a beach area to be evaluated even if not all the data necessary to rate the parameters is available or if some measurement is too difficult or cannot be made. Therefore, the indicators are not based on exact values and can be the same for areas with different characteristics and numerical scores. In the rating system


Beach Indicators

Table 3. Beach classification according to development and use levels.


1443

1444

Arau´jo and Costa

Table 3. Continued.

used in this study, it would be possible for a beach area to be deficient in a single element (e.g., low habitat diversity) and still show a relatively high overall score. This is also possible because the weight of each parameter has a significant importance on the end score in this assessment. The natural and socioeconomic subsystems proposed here have some characteristics that might be emphasised and will help in interpreting the results of the pilot study. Of the preexisting parameters, 13 were cited in four or more references accessed in the literature review. To consider these parameters in the present analysis represents the enforcement of a previous and consistently established trend in beach assessment. They all have weight 3 in the present work, reinforcing their importance. In the natural subsystem, they have weight 6, all related to marine pollution and water

quality (marine debris, sewage discharge, bacteriological indicators, and others), which are major issues, especially in developing countries. These parameters are also a hot public issue and are always cited by beach users as a major reason for choosing a beach to go to (MACLEOD et al., 2002; MORGAN, 1999b). In the socioeconomic subsystem, this trend is repeated. From the 30 parameters proposed, 7 are cited in four or more references. These are all related to comfort and safety (toilets, paved beach access, lifeguards, and others). In the natural subsystem, from the 30 parameters listed, 5 are new (one-sixth). The majority of them are related to damages from unplanned urban occupation. Their weights are distributed between 2 and 3. In the socioeconomic subsystem, from the 30 parameters listed, 6 are new (one-fifth). They are mainly related to good use of the natural landscape, nature

Table 4. Minimum percentage of the total score in each of the evaluation subsystems needed to classify beaches of different development stages and intensities of use, according to indicators of coastal quality. Urban Beaches/Resort (overdeveloped)

Urban Beaches/Nonresort (developed)

Rural Beaches (underdeveloped)

Indicators

N

SE

N

SE

N

SE

A (excellent) B (good) C (regular) D (bad)

90–100 70–89 50–69 33–49

71–100 51–70 21–50 ⬍20

90–100 70–89 50–69 33–49

61–100 41–60 16–40 ⬍15

90–100 70–89 50–69 33–49

51–100 31–50 11–30 ⬍10

N ⫽ natural, SE ⫽ socioeconomic.


Beach Indicators

1445

Table 5. North and south limits (UTM—25L) of the nine beach areas on Pernambuco State coast (north-east Brazil) assessed during the pilot study. Development Level

Beach Areas

Overdeveloped

Boa Viagem ‘‘a’’ Boa Viagem ‘‘b’’ Bairro Novo Developed Forno da Cal Campas Maria Farinha Underdeveloped Sossego Praia do Porto Carneiros

Initial Limit (N)

End Limit (S)

0290739/9100794 0290726/9100801 0297408/9116460 0297871/9139927 0269815/9031731 0297784/9131084 0298048/9146311 0266631/9025444 0271007/9037474

0291971/9103375 0290574/9100332 0297389/9115971 0297701/9139485 0269577/9031267 0297759/9130558 0298091/9145855 0266356/9025045 0271248/9037130

N ⫽ north, S ⫽ south.

conservation actions, and presence of policemen. Their weights are evenly distributed between 1 and 2. In the natural subsystem, the weight 1 is the least represented. Weights 2 and 3 are almost equally represented (11 and 13, respectively). However, weight 3 is almost half of the whole subsystem, including being used for parameters 14 and 19 (Table 1), which are proposed here for the first time. The socioeconomic subsystem is more evenly balanced in terms of distribution of the weights among the parameters (Table 6). In both subsystems, the weight 3 parameters will be the decisive ones for the total score. Consequently, the indicator reached by each beach stretch or whole beach depends heavily upon the marking of these parameters. In the socioeconomic subsystem, 11 out of 30 parameters are part of the Blue Flag Campaign (Table 2). From these, 2 are exclusively Blue Flag. In the natural subsystem, this number is reduced to 2 (Table 1), none exclusively Blue Flag. The Blue Flag Campaign was created to be implemented in beaches of developed countries and is now being successfully adapted to developing ones. Among all the references, this is the only system with a proposal of worldwide expansion, and it has recently arrived in Brazil. All other references are governmental, focused on specific aspects of beach management in the European Union, United States, and Brazil, or academic works.

Pilot Study Analysis The nine beach areas chosen for the validation of the method proposed here are those whose landscape is most frequently exploited by the government and the media as advertisements of Pernambuco State tourist resources. Also, they are well known through the literature and there was enough information to subsidise the analysis of the proposed parameters (ARAU´JO and COSTA, 2006; ARAU´JO et al., 2007; COU´ RIO, ARAU ´ JO, and VALENC TINHO et al., 1994; GREGO ¸ A, 2004; PEREIRA et al., 2003, 2007; SILVA et al., 2006; SILVA, BARBOSA, and COSTA, 2008; SILVA et al., 2008). The indicators obtained for each of the nine beach areas for both subsystems are shown (Table 7) and compared (Figure 2). The minimum score registered in this pilot study for the natural subsystem was 121 for Forno da Cal Beach, which led to a C indicator. This beach has also reached the lowest socioeconomic indicator (C), from a score of 13. The

Figure 1. Map of the study area, indicating each of the beaches used in the pilot study. Full circles are major urban areas.

maximum score registered for the natural subsystem was 197 at Carneiros Beach, resulting in an A indicator. For the socioeconomic subsystem, the maximum score of 33 was registered for Carneiros Beach and Boa Viagem ‘‘a,’’ resulting in indicators A and B for each beach area, respectively. The D indicator did not occur in our survey. In general, the indicators for the natural subsystem varied more widely than those from the socioeconomic subsystem (Figure 2). In the socioeconomic subsystem, the score remained low (Figure 2b), probably due to the general lack of beach infrastructure but especially as a consequence of the inexistence or nonapplication of public policies (parameters 21–25, 28).

Table 6. Distribution of the new, previously existing, and Blue Flag– related parameters among weights 1, 2, and 3 for each subsystem. Weight Total

1

2

3

Natural (all) New ⱖ 4 references Blue Flag Excl. Blue Flag

Parameters

30 5 6 2 0

6 — — — —

11 3 — — —

13 2 6 2 —

Socioeconomic (all) New ⱖ 4 references Blue Flag Excl. Blue Flag

30 6 7 11 2

10 3 2 3 1

9 3 1 3 1

11 — 4 5 —


1446

Arau´jo and Costa

Table 7. Coastal quality indicators obtained from total and percentage score for the nine beach areas. Natural Subsystem Development Level

Overdeveloped

Developed

Underdeveloped

Socioeconomic Subsystem

Beach Areas

Total Score

%

Indicator

Total Score

%

Indicator

Boa Viagem ‘‘a’’ Boa Viagem ‘‘b’’ Bairro Novo Forno da Cal Campas Maria Farinha Sossego Praia do Porto Carneiros

156 129 128 121 137 164 162 173 197

77.6 64.2 63.7 60.2 68.2 81.6 80.6 86.1 98.0

B C C C C B B B A

33 22 14 13 23 23 20 24 33

54.1 36.1 23.0 21.3 37.7 37.7 32.8 39.3 54.1

B C C C C C B B A

Although the nine beach areas approached during the pilot study were grouped into three different development levels (overdeveloped, developed, and underdeveloped) and level-ofuse intensity, each has characteristics that distinguished it within the group. Boa Viagem (‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’) and Bairro Novo are urban beaches inserted into large cities. Consequently, they have similar demands for infrastructure and services and have similar characteristics regarding natural and socioeconomic problems. However, according to our evaluation, Boa Viagem ‘‘a’’ is better than the other beaches in its group in many respects (vegetation cover, visual quality of the landscape, no difference of level from access area to the beach, and others), and it reached indicator B for both subsystems. Boa Viagem ‘‘b’’ and Bairro Novo obtained C for both subsystems. The main environmental problem for both sites is the reduced and absent backshore, respectively, due to irregular occupation by large structures (seawalls) to protect the area against erosion, which affect almost the whole extension of each area. Although these structures may protect coastal property (which was inadequately built in the first place), they also have a severe negative impact on beaches, especially low visual quality of the landscape. This problem is

bigger in Bairro Novo Beach because it is characterised by the presence of groynes all along it (PEREIRA et al., 2007). In addition, Bairro Novo presents an unfavourable record of bacteriological contamination. Nevertheless, as a positive aspect, both beaches have bathing areas protected by reefs (artificial for Bairro Novo). Regarding the socioeconomic subsystem, Bairro Novo obtained a lower score than Boa Viagem ‘‘b’’ because it does not have any basic infrastructure, for instance toilets, showers, and rubbish bins. On the other hand, Boa Viagem ‘‘a’’ obtained a B indicator for both subsystems because it does not present erosion problems and has a relatively well-preserved backshore covered by vegetation, good visual quality of the landscape, low bacteriological contamination, and adequate infrastructure. Forno da Cal, Campas, and Maria Farinha beaches are used mainly during weekends, and especially in the summer, since they are located at less developed tourist towns. Forno da Cal obtained the worst scores for both subsystems because it has serious environmental problems. Among them, this beach is highly vulnerable to coastal erosion, has an absence of vegetation on the backshore, and has an absence of infrastructure and facilities, as well as low safety standards. This

Figure 2. Comparison among beaches’ percentage scores in the pilot study. A, B, C, and D are environmental quality indicators. (a) ( ) ⫽ Limits among environmental quality indicators’ percentage scores and N.A. ⫽ percentage scores in a range not applicable to this method. (b) Limits among ), developed (········), and underdeveloped (– – –) beaches. BN ⫽ Bairro Novo, environmental quality indicators’ percentage scores for overdeveloped ( BVa ⫽ Boa Viagem a, BVb ⫽ Boa Viagem b, CN ⫽ Carneiros, CP ⫽ Campas, FC ⫽ Forno da Cal, MF ⫽ Maria Farinha, PP ⫽ Praia do Porto, SS ⫽ Sossego.


Beach Indicators

beach also presents occupation of the foreshore by hard structures, and there is a high positive correlation between human occupation and landscape change, mainly due to uncontrolled building of sea defences by private proprietors. Campas is similar to Forno da Cal but lies inside an environmental conservation area with effective control of the occupation. There are distinct differences among Maria Farinha and the two other beaches of this group. It is the best of the three because it does not have erosion problems, presents a well-preserved backshore (with native vegetation), has good visual quality of the landscape, and has low levels of bacteriological contamination. However, it does not have good conditions of infrastructure and facilities. Sossego, Praia do Porto, and Carneiros achieved the highest numerical scores and indicators for the natural subsystem because are located at underdeveloped areas of the littoral and still present good environmental conditions. The areas are practically free from any occupation on the beach environment, favouring the presence of healthy and uniform native vegetation or coconut plantations. Although they do not have much infrastructure (most being private land) and facilities, they have an attractive natural situation with high landscape value, being exploited by upper market tourism. The high scores registered for the Carneiros area were obtained basically by the influence of its location inside a conservation unit. It allows the area to have high biological diversity (parameters 17 and 18 of the natural subsystem) of the macrobenthic flora and fauna, effectively integrated coastal management action, and a zonation system (parameters 21 and 22 of the socioeconomic subsystem, respectively). Our results show the general situation of the coastal conditions within urban, semiurban, and nonurban beaches. With the exception of Maria Farinha, all beach areas obtained the same indicator for both subsystems (Table 6), favouring the interpretation about the area conditions by both beach users and managers. If the indicators were different, the beach users would have to assess and decide whether their preferences regarding the choice and use of a beach area are related more with natural integrity or with presence of infrastructure and facilities. According to MORGAN (1999a), there are substantial differences in preference and/or priority for many beach aspects, depending on beach users’ preferred beach type and use. Beaches are important to the economy of many coastal countries around the world, and surveys have shown that excellent scenery is one of the major components that tourists would like to have in their immediate beach surroundings (ERGIN et al., 2004). The potential of the beach in terms of environmental and scenic quality is an important point to consider, as well as type of social use. The public demand on beaches is very diverse. There are people who wish to enjoy the ‘‘natural characteristics’’ of a beach and those who prefer the traditional ‘‘beach resort’’ qualities. For many people, beaches should be left in their natural state, without any facilities. For these kinds of people, beaches with the best natural conditions (A and B degrees) are preferred. People may choose beaches with fewer amenities simply because they believe them to be safer and cleaner (PENDLETON, MARTIN, and WEBSTER, 2001).

1447

BRETON et al. (1996) reports public opinion that favours sanitary facilities and other basic amenities if they have no undesirable impacts on the landscape. Therefore, the percentage interval necessary to classify the beaches in the socioeconomic subsystem decreased from overdeveloped to underdeveloped. Most people use beaches passively and spend most of the day lying in the sun and resting. Each beach area, depending on its characteristics, attracts different kinds of users with different interests, which condition their actions. There is certainly a need for some basic services on beaches, but the main demand is to consume space for sunbathing and relaxation. According to the National Healthy Beaches Campaign, beach users’ focus is clean, safe, healthy beaches to play and relax on, but sometimes, unfortunately, visitors arrive at a beach to find it dirty, overcrowded, or severely eroded or to find the water polluted. According to MACLEOD, SILVA, and COOPER (2002), the problem of rubbish and litter was the most commonly cited dislike of beach users (⬎40%). In a survey developed by PENDLETON, MARTIN, and WEBSTER (2001), almost half of the respondents who went to the beach but did not enter the water cited pollution as the reason they avoided doing so. According to BRETON et al. (1996), people are generally more concerned about health and safety than about nature conservation. On the other hand, researchers are generally more concerned about vulnerability to coastal erosion, habitat diversity change, and ecosystem condition improvement. It is important to take all these views into consideration because, according to JIMEŃEZ and KONINGSVELD (2002), there is a diverging perception between users and managers about what an ideal beach is or what should be developed or preserved. The recreational use of a beach can have both direct and indirect effects. Where and when coastal environments are used by human populations, the natural conditions tend to be disturbed, and the degree of disturbance ranges from nearly imperceptible to serious. But coastal environments vary considerably in their ability to absorb anthropogenic pressure (resilience). The public continues to view marine pollution as a problem that is bad and getting worse. It has been suggested that continuous efforts to make beaches safer and more hygienic should be made. This implies basically better water quality and adequate litter management. The problem of solid waste contamination for both sand and water was the most commonly observed in all beach areas studied. This kind of contamination (especially by plastics items), does not relate to the level of beach development or level of use, because it can originate from either land-based (river runoff and beach users) or ocean-based (fishing vessels and ships) sources. Solid wastes are widely recognised as seriously degrading the visual amenities of marine areas, with negative effects on tourism, general aesthetics (ARAU´JO and COSTA, 2006), and animal conservation. Beach management must consider the entire spectrum of coastal conflicts addressing the social, economic, and natural aspects of beach use. With increasing socioeconomic pressure on these environments, the interactions should be controlled properly. According to CENDRERO and FISCHER (1997), there


1448

Arau´jo and Costa

is a wide gap between experts’ estimate of risk and the public’s understanding of the same risk. Some of the major questions to be asked by effective beach management refer to the level to which beaches should be developed, the level of disturbance that can be tolerated, and the local requirements and preferences of beach users. Beach management must necessarily address each issue with priorities, depending chiefly on the main use of the area in question. However, it is possible that a beach will serve several purposes simultaneously (MICALLEF and WILLIAMS, 2002). The less developed a beach is, the greater the possibility of success will be in the implementation of a sustainable management, without depriving the landscape resources and generating a potential income source through tourism. It is important to emphasise that beaches that obtained A or B for the natural subsystem, especially the underdeveloped ones, must be protected against uncontrolled and unplanned building of the backshore, loss of vegetation cover and marine species, and overload of tourism activities. Their visual quality of the landscape must be preserved, and only basic facilities must be available. On the other hand, beach areas that received a C indicator must be restored, if possible. Urban beaches can have more facilities to serve a greater number of users.

CONCLUSION It is very important to understand the functioning of the natural beach ecosystem and its interactions with socioeconomic factors in order to comprehend why humans behave in ways that cause ecological disturbance and then to contribute to a solution. The development of indicators can efficiently transfer a common base of processed scientific information to distinct actors (users, managers, and researchers). Although this methodology gives not an absolute number for the environmental quality of a particular beach area but only a subjective symbol obtained from the sum of several parameters, it can be used as an important tool in the decision-making process for planning regional development and for choosing which beach to visit. The individual parameters can be periodically monitored to identify possible changes in aspects considered relevant for the local management plan. Furthermore, if this methodology is applied to the same beach area in different years, it can tell us whether or not the area is moving towards better environmental conditions and whether the main issues were solved or still persist. The diversity of beaches is important and must be maintained to provide a range of types, from the amenity beach with a wide range of facilities and available infrastructure to the less used and isolated type. If economic development and tourism are inevitable, especially for isolated beaches in rural areas, it is important that such development does not destroy the very resource and feature that attracts its users. Most of the studied beach areas, even the urban ones, have serious deficits of basic services, especially those with specific demands according to the preferences of the users. But amenity provision should not be indiscriminate; the maintenance of the landscape quality of beaches must be the main priority.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) for the four years of Ph.D. scholarship of M.C.B. Arau´jo (Process No. 140338/2004-7), during which this manuscript was prepared. We also would like to thank two anonymous referees for the helpful comments on the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED ARAU´JO, M.C.B. and COSTA, M., 2006. The significance of solid wastes land-based sources for a tourist beach. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences, 1(1), 28–34. ARAU´JO, M.C.B. and COSTA, M., 2007. Visual diagnosis of solid wastes contamination of a tourist beach: Pernambuco, Brazil. Waste Management, 27, 833–839. ARAU´JO, M.C.B.; SOUZA, S.T.; CHAGAS, A.C.O., and COSTA, M.F., 2007. Analysis of the urban occupation of beaches in Pernambuco, Brazil. Revista da Gestaõ Costeira Integrada 7(2), 97–104. BRETON, F.; CLAPE´S, J.; MARQUE´S, A., and PRIESTLEY, G.K., 1996. The recreational use of beaches and consequences for the development of new trends in management: the case of the beaches of the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Ocean and Coastal Management, 32(3), 153–180. CENDRERO, A. and FISCHER, D.W., 1997. A procedure for assessing the environmental quality of coastal areas for planning and management. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3), 732–744. COUTINHO, P.N.; LIMA, A.T.O.; QUEIROZ, C.M.; FREIRE, G.S.S.; ALMEIDA, L.E.S.B.; MAIA, L.P.; MANSO, V.A.V.; BORBA, A.L.S.; MARTINS, M.H.A., and DUARTE, R.X., 1997. Estudo da Erosa ˜ o Marinha nas Praias de Piedade e de Candeias e no Estua´rio de Barra de Jangadas. Municı´pio de Jaboataõ dos Guararapes—PE. Lab. de Geocieˆncias e Geofı´sica Marinha—LGGM/UFPE. Relato´rio Tećnico. 154p [in Portuguese]. COUTINHO, P.N.; MANSO, V.A.V.; LIMA, A.T.O.; MEDEIROS, A.B.; PEDROSA, F.J.A.; MARTINS, M.H.A.; CHAVES, N.S.; SAMPAIO, A.S.; LIRA, A.R.A.; MENEZES, M.C.B., and BRITO, M.F., 1994. Coastal Quaternary of Pernambuco, Brazil. 14th International Sedimentological Congress (Recife, Brazil). ERGIN, A.; KARAESMEN, E.; MICALLEF, A., and WILLIAMS, A.T., 2004. A new methodology for evaluation coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems. Area, 36(4), 367–386. ERGIN, A.; KARAKAYA, T.; RADIC, M., and WILLIAMS, A.T., 2006. Coastal scenic evaluation: a study of some Dalmatian (Croatia) areas. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 39, pp. 899– 903. GREGO´RIO, M.N.; ARAU´JO, T.C.M., and VALENÇA, L.M.M., 2004. Variaçaõ sedimentar das praias doPina e da Boa Viagem, Recife (PE) Brasil. Tropical Oceanography, 31(1), 39–52 [in Portuguese]. INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATı´STICA, 2000. Sinopse Preliminar do Censo Demogra´fico 2000, Volume 7. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´stica, 419p [in Portuguese]. INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION OF UNESCO STAFF, 2003. A Reference Guide on the Use of Indicators for Integrated Coastal Management. ICAM Dossier No. 1, IOC Manuals and Guides No. 45. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. JIMEŃEZ, J.A. and KONINGSVELD, M., 2002. Coastal State Indicators: A Bridge between Science and Coastal Management. Coastal State Indicators Report. CoastView Report. KLEIN, Y.L.; OSLEEB, J.P., and VIOLAT, M.R., 2004. Tourism-generated earnings in the coastal zone: a regional analysis. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(4), 1080–1088. MACLEOD, M.; SILVA, C.P., and COOPER, J.A.G., 2002. A comparative study of the perception and value of beaches in rural Ireland and Portugal: implications for coastal zone management. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(1), 14–24. MICALLEF, A. and WILLIAMS, A.T., 2002. Theoretical strategy con-


Beach Indicators

siderations for beach management. Ocean and Shoreline Management, 45(4/5), 261–275. MICALLEF, A. and WILLIAMS, A.T., 2004. Application of a novel approach to beach classification in the Maltese Islands. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 225–242. MORGAN, R., 1999a. A novel, user-based rating system for tourist beaches. Tourism Management, 20, 393–410. MORGAN, R., 1999b. Preferences and priorities of recreational beach users in Wales, UK. Journal of Coastal Research, 15(3), 653–667. NELSON, C.; MORGAN, R.; WILLIAMS, A.T., and WOOD, J., 2000. Beach awards and management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43, 87–98. PANTUS, F.J. and DENNISON, W.C., 2005. Quantifying and evaluating ecosystem health: a case study from Moreton Bay, Australia. Environmental Management, 36(5), 757–771. PENDLETON, L.; MARTIN, N., and WEBSTER, D.G., 2001. Public perceptions of environmental quality: a survey study of beach use and perceptions in Los Angeles County. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 1155–1160. PEREIRA, L.C.C.; JIMEŃEZ, J.A.; MEDEIROS, C., and COSTA, R.M., 2003. The influence of the environmental status of Casa Caiada and Rio Doce beaches (NE Brazil) on beaches users. Ocean and Coastal Management, 46, 1011–1030. PEREIRA, L.C.C.; JIMEŃEZ, J.A.; MEDEIROS, C., and COSTA, R.M., 2007. Use and occupation of Olinda littoral (NE Brazil): guidelines

1449

for an integrated coastal management. Environmental Management, 40, 210–218. PRATES, A.P.L. (ed.) 2003. Atlas of Coral Reef Protect Areas in Brazil. Brası´lia: MMA/SBF. 180p [in Portuguese]. PROJETO ORLA, 2002. Fundamentos Para Gestaõ Integrada. Brası´lia: MMA/SQA; Brası´lia: MP/SPU, 78p [in Portuguese]. SILVA, J.S.; BARBOSA, S.C.T., and COSTA, M.F., 2008. Flag items as a tool for monitoring solid wastes from users on urban beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(4), 890–898. SILVA, J.S.; BARBOSA, S.C.T.; LEAL, M.M.V.; LINS, A.R., and COSTA, M.F., 2006. Ocupaçaõ da praia da Boa Viagem (Recife/PE) ao longo de dois dias de veraõ: um estudo preliminar. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences, 1(2), 91–98 [in Portuguese]. SILVA, J.S.; LEAL, M.M.V.; ARAU´JO, M.C.B.; BARBOSA, S.C.T., and COSTA, M.F., 2008. Spatial and temporal patterns of use of Boa Viagem Beach, Northeast Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(1A), 79–86. SNUC, 2000. Ministe´rio do Meio Ambiente. Brası´lia: Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservaçaõ da Natureza [in Portuguese]. TABARELLI, M. and SILVA, J.M.C., DA (orgs.), 2002a. Diagno´stico da Biodiversidade de Pernambuco. Secretaria de Cieˆncias, Tecnologia e Meio Ambiente. Editora Massangana, Volume 1. Recife, Brazil. [in Portuguese]. TABARELLI, M. and SILVA, J.M.C., DA (orgs), 2002b. Diagno´stico da Biodiversidade de Pernambuco. Secretaria de Cieˆncias, Tecnologia e Meio Ambiente. Editora Massangana, Volume 2. Recife, Brazil. [in Portuguese].
