![[Skip Navigation]](/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials
Social and Demographic Trends that Affect the Need for Beach NourishmentIntroduction
Federal and state shore protection program (commonly referred to as beach nourishment) funding appropriations have increased significantly over the past 50 years. Between 1950 and 1994, a total of 132 shore protection projects were authorized by Congress (Robinson 2001). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent approximately $880 million (in 1993 dollars) between 1950 and 1993 on beach nourishment (Heinz 2000). Over this 43-year period annual expenditures for beach nourishment averaged $20.5 million per year in 1993 dollars, or approximately $25 million per year in 2001 dollars. By the late 1990s, average annual expenditures for federal shore protection increased to approximately $100 million. Total shore protection appropriations for FY 2002 increased to $134.7 million, as approved by Congress in the 2002 Water Resources Appropriations Bill. This appropriation represents an increase of $47.1 million above the amount requested by President George W. Bush ($87.6 million). Although neither appropriation is large by federal standards, expenditures on shore protection are a growing portion of the federal budget, and come in response to increasing pressures from residents and business owners living in coastal areas. The term "need for beach nourishment" is a very subjective concept. There is no end to the goods and services that we need. Economists do not talk about need in this sense. Instead they talk about demand. When economists speak of the demand for a good they mean the demand function. Demand is the relationship between the quantities demanded per time period, the prices associated with those quantities, and other relevant factors that can affect demand. Demand may be represented graphically by a demand curve. The demand curve shows the relationship between the quantity demanded and price, while holding all other factors constant. In many examples, demand curves are simplified by representing them as a straight line similar to the "curve" in Figure 2. Figure 2 is a hypothetical demand curve for a beach community that has a quantity demanded of 20 miles of beach nourishment per year at a price of $800,000 per mile of nourished beach. If the price decreases to $500,000 per mile, then the quantity demanded increases to 50 miles per year. At a price of $900,000 per mile only a quantity of 10 miles of nourished beach is demanded. For an economist, demand is the entire curve. A change in price changes the quantity demanded, but dthis exemplifies movement along the demand curve, not a shift of the curve itself. When an economist writes the equation for the demand function that represents the demand curve, that function includes price and other factors. The other factors are anything other than price that will affect demand. Changes in income, the price compliments and/or substitutes, population (for a market demand curve), taxes or subsidies, and consumer tastes and preferences are frequently given as examples of other relevant factors. Changes in any of these other relevant variables will shift or change demand. That is, the demand curve will move rightward (an increase in demand) or leftward (a decrease in demand) as a result of a change in the other factors, as shown in Figure 3. Rather than talk about the need for beach nourishment economists talk about changes in demand for beach nourishment. So what factors can shift demand for beach nourishment? The demand for beach nourishment is derived from three major sources: people who live on the beach, people who play on the beach, and people who depend on the first two sources to earn a living. Factors that increase the number of beach residents or visitors will increase demand for beach nourishment. Figure 4 lists some of these factors. There are too many factors to cover in this essay; the essay will focus on policy factors and population factors. Policy FactorsA policy factor is a factor over which the government has direct control. It can change its policy regarding the factor and therefore change the factor. For example, currently the cost of many beach nourishment projects is split between the federal government (65 percent) and state and local sources (35 percent). The federal government is essentially subsidizing these projects. Federal funding subsidies cause an increased local demand because subsidies increase the quantity of nourishment the local entity "buys" at every price. President Clinton attempted to reduce federal funding for beach nourishment projects and President Bush also supports reduced federal expenditures for beach nourishment. From the status quo, a reduction in the federal subsidy (a 35 percent federal, 65 percent state and local split has been suggested) will decrease the demand for beach nourishment projects. U.S. Population TrendsThe population growth trends for the United States are shown in Figure 5 for census years from 1960, when the population was 179.3 million, through 2000 when the population rose to 281.4 million. Over this 40-year period, the United States resident population grew by about 1.1 percent per year. Population growth rates vary from region to region as well as among population segment categories (such as age, family life cycle, and ethnic group). Some areas of the country are growing faster than others. The Northeast, still the most densely populated region, is growing more slowly than the West mountain states and Northwestern states. The Sunbelt continues to grow, but not as rapidly as it has in the last two decades. Coastal regions grew at approximately 1.1 percent per year, mimicking the rate of population growth for the entire United States.
The Census Bureau publishes population counts for coastal counties. As shown in Figure 5, the coastal county portion of the U.S. population has averaged between 52 percent and 54 percent of the national population total since 1960. The coastal population growth rate was greater than the national growth rate in the 1960s and 1980s and slightly less than the national growth rate during the 1970s and 1990s. In 2000, 52.7 percent of the U.S. population resided in coastal counties, essentially the same proportion of the population that resided in coastal counties during the 1960s. Coastal counties within the U.S. occupy a land area of approximately 888 thousand square miles, 262 thousand square miles of which represents counties that bound the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Since 1960, the population in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico has increased by 45 percent. In 1960, an average of 204 people were living on each square mile of coastal land in the counties bordering the Atlantic and Gulf coastlines. By 2000, this density increased to 296 persons per square mile. By contrast, in 2000 the average population per square mile nationally equaled 80 persons per square mile. The population density along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coastal counties is almost four times higher than the national population density. The most densely populated areas of a coastal area generally border the ocean or estuary waterfront areas. These locations are primary areas for residential and commercial development. The population density for counties located directly along a tidal shoreline reveals the demand–an average of 360 people living within every square mile of land in these counties (Culliton 1988). Growth ProjectionsThe proportion of the U.S. population residing in coastal counties is expected to remain the same or increase slightly. This means that as the U.S. population grows, the coastal counties will become even more densely populated. Figure 7 shows the U.S. Census Bureau's mid range population projection for the U.S. population to 2050. The second column in Figure 7 projects coastal county population assuming that the percentage of the U.S. population residing in coastal counties remains constant at the current 52.7 percent over the next 50 years. This assumption implies that the coastal population will increase at an average rate of 4,281 people per day between 2000 and 2050. The total projected population increase within coastal counties over the 50-year period is 37.2 million people. Thus by 2025, the population in the coastal counties is estimated to be 178.0 million people, or approximately equal to the entire population of the United States in 1960. Added details about the regional variations in population increases can be found at http://spo.nos.noaa.gove/projects/population/population.html.
While the U.S. shoreline is not fixed, as erosion and accretion will vary the shoreline over time, coastal county areas will not increase with the population. Coastal counties represent about 17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, and 50 years from now the coastal county area will essentially be the same as it is today. Therefore, if current trends continue, the already highly developed coastal areas will become more densely developed. Growth brings jobs, creates additional income, and increases tax revenues. Growth also leads to congestion affecting infrastructure and degrades the sensitive coastal environment. This places pressure on government to improve infrastructure and increases the demand for shore protection program funding. There is a three-pronged impact on the demand for shore protection. First, as the coastal county population increases, there are more potential voters within driving distance of the shore who will demand recreational opportunities. Second, additional beach visitation associated with tourism results in the growth of retail businesses, such as T-shirt shops, restaurants, and souvenir shops, in addition to businesses providing leased properties and hotel/motel accommodations. The owners and employees of these beach related businesses have a vested interest in the condition of the beaches, further increasing the demand for beach nourishment. And third, the number and value of housing units will increase as the population increases. Increased population will increase the demand for land across the U.S. Because the supply of coastal land is fixed, the increase in demand will lead to higher land prices in coastal counties. This will be particularly true along the coastline. Higher land values imply that the land will be used more intensively. As land prices rise, larger and/or more luxurious housing will be built. As land prices rise, multifamily housing may replace single-family housing. As land prices rise, it becomes profitable to develop marginal coastal properties. Thus, as land prices rise, we expect the improvement value of property in the costal counties to increase. This is particularly true along the densely packed shoreline. And, as the value of property along the shore increases, the value of storm damage reduction from nourishment will also increase. Other Population FactorsOther factors have also influenced the demand for shore protection and will continue to do so in the near future. The "Baby Boomer" generation is reaching middle age, the time that people traditionally buy second homes. More than 63 percent of seasonal housing in the Southeast is located along the Florida coast with North Carolina and South Carolina accounting for much of the remaining seasonal housing in the region (Culliton 1988). By 2025, the Census Bureau projects that the median age in the U.S. will be 38.5 years and that 30.5 percent of the population will be over 55 years of age. The oldest portion of the "baby boomers" segment of the population will be hitting retirement age within the next 10 years. This sector of the population is thus likely to support additional demand for coastal housing, particularly in the warm climates of the southeast U.S. Managing ErosionThe increase in the coastal population will increase the demand for managing coastal erosion. Coastal communities have three basic strategies for managing beach erosion: do nothing, strategic retreat, or rehabilitation/stabilization. "Do nothing" allows the beach to naturally migrate inland (that is, erode) while doing nothing to protect or relocate buildings or infrastructure. "Strategic retreat" allows the shoreline to migrate inland more or less naturally, while nothing is done to stabilize the beach, and the buildings and infrastructure are relocated when necessary as the shoreline retreats. Owners of coastal property generally do not support the "do nothing" or the strategic retreat strategies. Owners of beachfront property and businesses that depend on beaches and related beach activities demand shore protection or beach nourishment. Beach armoring is the construction of protective hard structures such as bulkheads, jetties, and seawalls to prevent erosion, and is generally restricted or prohibited without beach nourishment. Thus, public projects generally avoid beach hardened forms of beach armoring. Beach nourishment replaces lost beach sand with sand from another location in order to extend the beach seaward. Beach nourishment increases beach width, which, in turn, provides storm protection. Although the costs of beach nourishment are relatively high and serious environmental issues must be resolved, there has been a clear shift from shoreline armoring to beach nourishment (Bookman 1999) for most oceanfront shorelines. Barring some unforeseen development, it is likely that beach nourishment will be the primary method to satisfy the demand for shore protection for years to come. SummaryNourishing a beach provides benefits to three main beneficiaries. 1) Recreational benefits accrue to beach visitors who enjoy the beach; 2) storm protection benefits accrue to the owners of beachfront property; and 3) regional economic benefits accrue to business owners and employees for businesses that provide services to beach residents and visitors. The general population increase in the United States will increase the demand for beaches because of the increased demand for recreational use. The general population increase also implies more people will be living along the coast in denser communities. This will increase the demand for storm damage reduction as this growth in population and density will increase not only the number of people who benefit from storm damage reduction but also the value of the property to be protected. Of course, more people living and playing on the beach implies a bigger business community that is dependent on the beach, further increasing the demand for beach nourishment. The key policy and population growth changes that will affect the future of shore protection and beach nourishment affecting beach nourishment demand are:
ReferencesBell, F. W., and V. R. Leeworthy. 1990. "Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach Days." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Volume 18. Pages 189 to 205. Bookman, C. A., T. J. Culliton, and M. A. Warren. 1999. Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970 - 1998. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Silver Spring, MD. Bureau of the Census. 1996. Population in Coastal Counties: April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1994. Population Distribution Branch. Retrievable from: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/9094cstl.txt Bureau of the Census. 1996. Population in Coastal Counties, 1960 - 1980. Population Distribution Branch. Retrievable from http://wwww.census.gov/population/estimates/county/6080cstl.txt Bureau of the Census. 2000. Annual Projections of the Total Resident Population as of July 1: Middle, Lowest, Highest, and Zero International Migration Series, 1999 to 2100. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T1.html Bureau of the Census. 2001. Statistical Abstract of the United States. GPO. Washington, DC. Culliton, T.J. 1988. "Population: Distribution, Density and Growth." NOAA's State of the Coast Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved May 1, 2002, from http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_01/pop.html Robinson, D. P., L. Zepp, and H. M. Shoudly. 2001. The Distribution of Shore Protection Benefits: A Preliminary Examination. U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. Alexandria, VA. Skidaway Institute Of Oceanography. 1985. Second Skidaway Institute Of Oceanography Conference On America's Eroding Shoreline. Savannah, Georgia. June 1985. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2000. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards Summary. Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Contract EMW-97-CO-0375. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National Shoreline Study. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
