Integrated Coastal Zone Management and

Cultural Heritage: a literature review

B.A. Salmons

Pol Sci 542: "Policy and Politics of Coastal Areas"

Iowa State University

Summer 2007
Introduction

"There are three approaches to coastal erosion: armor, beach nourishment and

retreat. Until the twentieth century, retreat was the favored option. A growing number

of people say it should be our policy again" (Dean 1999: 185). Fortunately, a good deal of

coastal management issues are amenable to this third approach, even in the face of

considerable opposition by property owners and elected officials who favor the first two

approaches. However, certain other aspects of coastal management are particularly

troublesome when the "retreat" approach is applied. The problem stems from the

interrelation of the value of a coastal site with the coastal location of the site. In other

words, coastal properties are valuable because they are on the coast, rather than inland.

The preservation of historic structures and archaeological sites located in coastal

zones is one example of this conundrum. Coastal erosion threatens historic and

archaeological sites in the same way it threatens contemporary structures and the

infrastructure that supports them. Yet, while moving historic structures inland and ex

situ preservation of (i.e. excavation of) archaeological sites is possible (Dean 1999: Chp.

9; English Heritage 2003), this is not always the preferred solution in historic

preservation and archaeological practice. The reason for this, once again, is the value

lent to a site by its location. In the case of preservation, that value is an interpretive and

pedagogic one, rather than an economic one as in the case of private property. The

educational value of an historic structure is greater in situ, on the site where its history

happened, than when it is moved inland or above water and out of this physical context.

The situation for archaeological sites is somewhat more complex. An archaeological site

encompasses more than just pottery sherds, bones and stone tools: micro–faunal

2
remains and fossilized pollen contained in the soil, and features like post hole

impressions and charcoal pits, are as important in site interpretation as the more

tangible artifacts. These features are actually a part of the site, and excavating them, or

allowing them to erode before excavation occurs, destroys them along with the site. As a

result, valuable information is lost not only to us, but to future generations who may

possess more advanced methods of excavation and site interpretation.

The implications of natural processes like coastal erosion on historic structures

and archaeological sites, as well as the impacts of tourism, commercial fishing,

commercial salvage operations and underwater mining operations, are, therefore,

important to consider in the preservation of coastal cultural heritage sites. Most of the

coastal management literature mentions the preservation of historic sites only in

passing, as one of many factors considered in any particular coastal management plan

(e.g. US Department of Commerce 1997; Georgia Ports Authority 1998; NOAA 2000;

Cassar 2003; Craig 2004; Doody 2004). Similarly, with few exceptions, the historic

preservation and archaeological literature on the subject rarely discusses the

implications of erosion processes and tourist activities on coastal structures and sites

and how policy can address it. The purpose of this paper is to provide on overview of

existing English-language literature on policy responses to issues in coastal historic and

archaeological preservation, or ‘cultural heritage’.

The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage defines cultural heritage as including “monuments,…inscriptions, cave

dwellings,…groups of buildings,…the combined works of man and nature, and…

archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical,

aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view” (WHC 1972:Article 1). The

3
terms ‘cultural heritage’, ‘maritime heritage’, ‘underwater heritage’, ‘historic resource’

and ‘cultural resource’ will be used loosely and interchangeably throughout this paper.

As suggested above, the literature on coastal cultural heritage is concentrated primarily

in the disciplines of coastal management, historic preservation and archaeology. What

literature does exist on the subject covers the various ways in which coastal historic and

archaeological sites are affected by their environment and how policy makers have

responded. The policy issues covered in the literature are highly varied and include such

things as managing the threat of sea-level rise to historic resources in national parks

(Pendleton, Thieler & Williams 2005), mitigating the damage of high-speed watercraft

on coastal archaeological sites (Parnell & Kofoed-Hansen 2001), and the facilitation of

preservation efforts by the very forces that threaten historic resources (Savouret 2004).

The literature will be analyzed in the context of the holistic approach to coastal

management called Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Following the analysis some

suggestions are made for future avenues of research.

ICZM and cultural heritage

Integrated Coastal Zone Management, or ICZM, is a holistic approach to the

management of conflicting uses of coastal resources. The interaction between human

activity (economic and social) and natural processes is the management focus of ICZM

(CZM-Centre 2001). The holistic approach of ICZM is accomplished by looking at all

aspects of coastal resource use, rather than focusing on just one aspect (e.g. natural

resources, real estate or historical resources) as if it were unrelated to the others. From

the perspective of ICZM, issues in coastal historic and archaeological preservation

cannot be extricated from the broader coastal context of nature conservation, land

4
development, recreational use and mitigation of natural hazards to human activity,

namely shoreline erosion, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons) and sea-level

rise.

Historic and archaeological sites are valuable resources in terms of their intrinsic

value. They are a “patrimony testifying [to] the history and the visions of the world” held

by coastal communities (Callegari 2003:49). However, the application of ICZM to issues

of historic and archaeological preservation uncovers an additional value: the potential

for these resources to generate economic revenue as tourist destinations. Relatively

recent advances in technology (e.g. SCUBA) have allowed previously inaccessible

historic shipwrecks and submerged archaeological sites to become the locus of

conflicting uses between scientists, “treasure hunters” and tourists. Likewise, the

conflicting demands of economic development and historic and archaeological

preservation are being played out on land as well. The ICZM approach holds promise for

the resolution of many of these issues by incorporating historic and archaeological sites

into economic development plans.

ICZM programs and projects have been developed in many parts of the world that

incorporate historic and archaeological resource management as an explicit focus of

coastal management. An overview of the literature about these projects could be

organized along many different lines: location, threat to resource, and ICZM strategies

for preservation. The organizational approach used in this review will be according to

resource type. The following sections will look at the literature as it applies to two

broadly defined resource types: 1) supra-tidal and inter-tidal sites and 2) sub-tidal, or

submerged, sites.

5
Supra-tidal and inter-tidal sites

Supra-tidal sites are those situated on ground located above the high-tide line.

This includes structures and artifact assemblages on the beach yet above the high-tide

line, as well as those located further inland yet still affected by coastal natural processes

like erosion and tropical storm surges, or by tourism and economic activities. An

example of a supra-tidal site is a lighthouse or an historic waterfront district or port

complex. Inter-tidal sites are those situated within the inter-tidal zone, or between the

high- and low-tide lines. Examples of inter-tidal sites include forts (like the Castillo de

San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida) and rock paintings located in partially submerged

coastal cave systems. There is considerable overlap between these two categories of sites,

which is why they are dealt with under one heading in this paper. The literature as

Figure 1 - Archaeologists excavate in the Sigatoka Dunes on Fiji (from: Simon Fraser University
website, http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/, accessed 10 July 2007.

6
it applies to supra- and inter-tidal historic and archaeological sites will be examined in

the following two sections.

Historic ruins and archaeological sites

Management of historic and archaeological sites in coastal areas relies on an

understanding of the natural processes that affect these sites and the mechanisms

through which they act. The archaeological literature provides some examples of studies

of these mechanisms. Przywolnik (2002) studied the effect of tropical storm surges on

shell middens on the northern coast of Australia. She found that storm surges were a

significant factor in the modern appearance of middens located seaward of dunes and

that sites located landward of the dunes were considerably less affected. The

management implication is that dune stabilization may significantly help in the

preservation of middens located landward of coastal dunes. Maurício, Pacheco, Brito,

Castro, Figueiredo & Aires-Barros (2005), in their concern for the preservation of

Portugal’s heritage, developed a new, non-invasive method for monitoring the

deterioration of historic stone monuments. This is a positive development for the

practice of cultural heritage management as it allows for a more systematic and less

labor-intensive means of assessing the condition of historic monuments. More directly

relevant to policy concerns is Lowe’s (1998) survey of an archaeological landscape

centered around St. Boniface church on the island of Papa Westray in Orkney, Scotland.

Sponsored by Historic Scotland, a national agency responsible for the management of

cultural and natural heritage lands, their concern was “to develop a cost-effective means

7
of tackling the assessment of large, extensive, deep sites with complex stratigraphy”

(Sec. 1.1.2).

Historic Scotland’s counterpart in England, English Heritage, is involved with

what is perhaps the most sincere effort at incorporating historic and archaeological

preservation into coastal management strategies (English Heritage 2003). The

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible for funding

local coastal management plans in England. Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) are

developed by local operating authorities according to guidelines published by Defra. The

plans emphasize that “all of the generic coastal defence options can have implications

for the historic environment” (p. 3). Other aspects of coastal management dealt with by

English Heritage include the policy environment, procedures for ensuring that the

historic environment is included in coastal management assessments, and the effects of

coastal realignment projects on historic and archaeological sites. By insisting that

cultural heritage “be considered as part of the cost-benefit analysis of coastal defence

systems” (p. 9), English Heritage has demonstrated exemplary leadership on the issue of

historic preservation within coastal policy.

Fitzpatrick, Kappers & Kaye (2006) investigated erosion of coastal archaeological

sites in the Lesser Antillian island of Carriacou and determined that the local practice of

sand mining was causing as much damage. They suggested that management programs

should address theses traditional activities, noting that “it is easier to manage the

activities of people than to manage the coast” (p. 260). Two studies from Portugal and

Mexico approach the issue of coastal cultural heritage from a broader point of view than

the previous studies, seeking conclusions that are applicable to other policy areas.

Carrasco, Ferreira, Matias & Dias (2007) studied a pair of historic ruins in Portugal for

8
the effects of shoreline erosion and developed a set of policy scenarios consisting of no

intervention, armoring of the shoreline and removal or relocation of the historic ruins

and artifacts. They note that “it is not easy to balance costs and benefits in complex

coastal management issues” like those involving historic structures and sites (p. 170).

Téllez Duarte (1993) discusses this complexity within the context of Mexico’s Baja

California coastal zone. Using three archaeological sites as examples, he proposes an

integrated coastal management plan for the preservation of paleontological and

archaeological resources, emphasizing the use of different types of museums (i.e.

removal of artifacts) to accommodate the needs of different stakeholders.

Waterfront revitalization

On the subject of revitalization of historic waterfronts, the issue of balancing

multiple stakeholders is again an important concern. In his study of a naval base in the

UK, Riley (1999) concludes with a pointed questioning of how the economic benefits of

historic sites (in this case, historic naval vessels) can be balanced against the “elite” need

for authenticity in the preservation community (p. 906). The issue here is not erosion or

storm surge, but rather the impact of coastal tourism on preservation and the tension

this creates for policy makers trying to balance the two interests. Clark & Pinder (1999)

also address this conflict between tourism and preservation uses of historic sites. In

their study of Venice’s Renaissance-era naval docks (the Arsenale), they encourage a

more diverse range of uses, encompassing not only tourism, but adaptive reuse by

universities and the modern Italian military as well. Whatever its range of uses, a

revitalized Arsenale has great potential to generate income for the local economy due to

Venice’s historic ties to the water and the tourism-related appeal of using the Arsenale

9
as a water gateway (a historic method of entry into the city). The impact that this kind of

tourism would have on coastal management in Venice is unexamined in the study and

deserves further consideration. In a later study, Pinder (2003) looks at the

“environments” that affect policy decisions regarding cultural heritage preservation in

coastal zones. He concludes that awareness of cultural heritage and its economic

Figure 2 - The late-16th century Gaggiandre docks (from Clark & Pinder 1999)

potential is not enough to garner support for preservation projects. To address this

problem in the UK’s coastal zones, he proposes a national adoption of a series of policy

guides formulated by the European Union that incorporate heritage preservation within

a larger program of coastal zone management.

10
Submerged sites

Submerged sites are those situated below the high-tide line under modern

climatic conditions. These sites consist of material and structures that once existed

above the water, although their cultural functions are usually related to coastal

activities. The type of submerged site most commonly dealt with in the preservation and

policy literature is shipwrecks. Another type of submerged site is formerly terrestrial

sites of occupation, such as prehistoric occupation sites and other artifact assemblages.

The discussion that follows will focus primarily on shipwrecks. Although many natural

processes, such as the movement of sea-bed sediments (Muckelroy 1978), affect

shipwreck sites, the impacts discussed in the literature reviewed here are mostly from

human activity.

Shipwrecks and other submerged sites

The literature on management of shipwrecks is somewhat more extensive than

that of other types of coastal heritage sites. Likewise, policy concerning the management

of shipwreck sites is more coherent and specifically focused on the unique set of

environmental and cultural factors that impact the preservation of these sites.

Nonetheless, in the two jurisdictions that are subject to the most attention in the

literature, the UK (particularly England) and the US, faults with policy as it pertains to

coastal cultural heritage are readily apparent. In their comprehensive survey of the

policy and management environment of marine archaeological resources in England,

Oxley & O’Regan (2001) conclude that national guidelines need to come to terms with

the fact that underwater cultural heritage “transcends environmental boundaries and

11
historically derived administrative limits” (p. 24). Current English policy relies heavily

on a voluntary approach to heritage management, making the monitoring of use of

underwater resources difficult. They cite a hopeful case of a local organization taking the

lead in a push for comprehensive, national vision for the management of underwater

cultural heritage (p. 12). They also note that England is behind its fellow countrymen in

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in implementing a national strategy, as

underwater cultural heritage is handled by a single agency in each of these countries

(Cadw, Historic Scotland, and the Environment & Heritage Service, respectively).

The situation in the United States is no better. In a recent article, Street (2006)

outlines the current legislative environment that frames the management of Underwater

Cultural Heritage (UCH) in national waters. He describes the three regimes under which

this management falls: the General Maritime Law, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act and

the Marine Sanctuaries Act (p. 468). The first delineates the laws of salvage and finds.

Passed in 1789, it is the least friendly to current valuations of shipwrecks as cultural

resources and more accommodating to the interests of the commercial salvaging

industry. The latter two regimes are of more recent vintage and have proven more

amenable to the aims of cultural resource management. All three tend to focus on

shipwrecks and “[ignore] other submerged archaeological sites” (p. 468). The author

concludes that the current regulatory regime in the U.S. is neither coordinated nor

holistic and is “inadequate to govern UCH” (p. 475). In contrast to Oxley & O’Regan’s

proposal for the UK, Street proposes a management approach based on the devolution

of management of resources within 3 nautical miles (NM) of the shore to the state-level,

while giving the federal government more control over resources located up to 24 NM

from shore, all without intruding on the domain of applicable international laws.

12
 Noting the arbitrariness of the nautical mile standards in American legal regimes

governing UCH, Elia (2000) suggests a three-prong approach that includes replacing

the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act with a more comprehensive legal regime that extends

outward to the Economic Extension Zone (EEZ), generally 200 NM from shore, with

equal application of the law to all sites within this zone (p. 54). Further addressing the

issue of UCH management beyond the current regulatory reach of 24 NM, Smith &

Couper (2003) emphasis the need to consider protection of resources lying beyond the

EEZ, in an area called the Deep Seabed (p. 27). They encourage the preservation

community to establish a dialogue with the commercial salvage industry so that

resources located outside territorial waters are not destroyed. The precarious situation

of sites on the Deep Seabed is made even more urgent by mining and commercial fishing

operations, both of which have the potential to do great harm to shipwreck sites.

As noted previously, Northern Ireland’s existing legal regime and management

plan is more holistic than that of the UK, or of the US for that matter, and is viewed with

satisfaction in the preservation community. Williams (2001) displays this satisfaction in

his discussion of the Environment and Heritage Services’ (EHS) role in managing

Northern Ireland’s maritime heritage. As in Elia’s (2000) discussion of the US legal

regime, Williams (2001) expresses concern about the effect of deep seabed activities on

underwater sites. While not all of these activities are currently practiced within

Northern Ireland’s coastal waters, Williams outlines an archaeological response to each

of the potential activities (oil and gas exploration and extraction, mineral dredging,

cable and pipe laying, dredging of shipping channels, commercial fishing, and fish and

shellfish farming) (p. 5). Notable in his overview is the optimism he holds regarding

Northern Ireland’s policy environment and the potential for compromise and mutual

13
agreement that can result from a holistic management plan incorporating the goals of

cultural heritage preservation.

In addition to the local and national arenas discussed thus far, the United Nations

also has a role to play in the management of underwater cultural heritage. Jeffrey

(2004b) considers this possibility for a group of sunken World War II ships and aircraft

in Chuuk Lagoon in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The popularity of this

site with scuba divers exacerbates the problems already inherent in managing an

Figure 3 - Archaeologists survey the upside-down wreck of a Japanese fighter plane in Chuuk Lagoon (from
Jeffrey 2004b)

underwater site as vast as this through the authority of an impoverished country like the

FSM. The current legislative regime under which the site is governed consists of local

state (Chuukese) law and FSM national law, as well as the United States’ National

14
Historic Preservation Act (FSM was an American protectorate until 1986 and still

maintains ties through economic aid and military bases) (p. 110, 117). UNESCO World

Heritage Listings for underwater sites are uncommon (as are listings for sites in the

Pacific region) and, ironically, Jeffrey sees the site’s current management problems as

an impediment to its qualification for the World Heritage Listing. This highlights the

need for competent local management of heritage sites as even a World Heritage Listing

is not “a magic wand that solves management problems” (p. 118).

In another paper on Chuuk Lagoon, Jeffrey (2004a) proposes a possibility for

better local management, which may in turn allow for Chuuk’s inclusion in the World

Heritage Listing. Noting the diverse ways in which the various stakeholders (American,

Japanese and Chuukese) of the Chuuk Lagoon site interpret the site in terms of their

own history, Jeffrey suggests that by including all of these stakeholders in the

management process would prove to be the “most efficient approach” to management of

the site.

Two other studies on the management of shipwreck sites (Cuthill 1998; Kaoru &

Hoagland 1994) look at the pragmatism of an approach that involves all stakeholders

and considers alternate methods of valuation of cultural resources. Kaoru & Hoagland

compare their approach, consisting of various kinds of non-market valuation, to the

assessment of historic resources as similar to that used to assess natural resources (p.

196). This is promising given the utility of non-market valuation in natural resource

management (e.g. Hall, Hall & Murray 2002; Arin & Kramer 2002) and Kaoru &

Hoagland (1994) conclude that non-market valuation of shipwrecks is essential to

balancing the needs of stakeholders, otherwise there will be “too much treasure hunting

or too much preservation” (p. 210). Cuthill’s (1999) study continues on the theme of

15
stakeholder collaboration, utilizing an “action research approach” that “focuses on the

involvement of, and collaboration with, stakeholders” (p. 36). He even proposes the

inclusion of descendants of those who perished in shipwrecks in the management

process (a very compassionate and thoughtful suggestion) (p. 44). Like Kaoru &

Hoagland, Cuthill recommends considering the different valuations stakeholders place

on shipwrecks, including historical, scientific, recreational, educational and economic

significance (p. 40-41).

One final note on underwater cultural heritage concerns the preservation

priorities of the historic preservation and archaeological communities themselves. The

consensus in these professions is that in situ preservation of historic shipwrecks is the

preferred method. Oxley (2001) notes that management of shipwrecks in situ is more

cost-effective than preserving them outside of the marine environment (p. 418).

Consistent with this Jeffrey (2004b) notes that the recently adopted UNESCO

Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage prefers in situ

preservation as does the NOAA in its administration of sites protected by the National

Marine Sanctuaries Act (Street 2006:474). The common exception to the rule is when

the site is threatened by destruction, in which case excavation is the option of last resort

(p. 474). Breaking with the consensus, Vrana & Mahoney (1995) suggest that not all

historic sites need to be preserved. Recognizing that the recreational and resulting

economic significance of historic shipwrecks are of importance leads, once again, to the

question of how to balance the often competing needs of stakeholders. Vrana &

Mahoney question whether all sites consisting of underwater cultural heritage are

necessary to achieve the needs of the scientific community and proposes that shipwreck

sites that do not meet “significance criteria, or for which numerous substitutes exist to

16
answer important research questions” (p. 178) should be preserved solely for

recreational use. While the historic and cultural uniqueness of all heritage sites might

cast doubt on this proposal, it is an interesting take on the multi-stakeholder approach

to managing historic underwater resources.

Summary

Existing approaches to the management of coastal cultural heritage vary by type

of resource (ancient coastal middens, historic waterfronts, shipwrecks), by location (on

land or underwater) and by legal and administrative jurisdiction (local, national,

international). Comprehensiveness and diligence of management programs also vary

between national jurisdictions and between local jurisdictions existing within the same

country (e.g. in the case of the United Kingdom, where England’s program, though

admirable, is outshined by Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s programs). The

challenges to effective cultural resource management in coastal areas arise primarily

from the ad hoc manner in historic and archaeological sites are managed under the

current policy environment. This problem is present nearly worldwide. From the

literature reviewed in this paper, it would appear that to address the issue of ineffective

management of coastal cultural resources a two pronged approach is necessary: 1)

broaden and strengthen the legal and administrative regimes at the national level to

allow for the unequivocal administration of local management plans, and 2) seek to

include the participation of all possible stakeholders and to recognize the multiple

valuations that stakeholders place on coastal historic and archaeological resources. This

kind of collaborative and holistic management approach framed by a strong supra-local

policy regime is desperately needed to protect cultural heritage that is increasingly

17
threatened by more severe global weather events, a surge in preference for coastal living

and tourist activities, and the greater access afforded to underwater tourists and large-

scale industry by technological advances.

Bibliography

Arin, T. & R.A. Kramer. (2002). Divers' Willingness to Pay to Visit Marine Sanctuaries:

An Exploratory Study. Ocean and Coastal Management, 45:171-183.

Callegari, F. (2003). Sustainable development prospects for Italian coastal cultural

heritage: a Ligurian case study. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4:49-56.

Carrasco, A.R., O. Ferreira, A. Matias & J.A. Dias. (2007). Historic Monuments

Threatened by Coastal Hazards at Boca do Rio, Algarve, Portugal. Coastal

Management, 35: 163-179.

Cassar, M. (2003). A project for the integrated management of protected coastal areas in

Malta. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 9: 73-80.

Clark C. & D. Pinder. (1999). Naval heritage and the revitalisation challenge: lessons

from the Venetian Arsenale. Ocean & Coastal Management, 42:933-956.

Coastal Zone Management Centre (CZM-Centre). (2001). The challenge of integrated

management. Retrieved 1 July 2007, from NetCoast.nl.

Craig, R.K. (2004). Europe’s Network of Marine Protected Areas: Legal and policy

Challenges for Coastal Biodiversity Protection. Proceedings of Littoral 2004, 7th

International Symposium. Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Science

and Policy, Volume 1: 170-174.

Cuthill, M. (1998). Managing the Yongala Historic Shipwreck. Coastal Management, 26

(1): 33-46.

18
Dean, C. (1999). Against the Tide. The Battle for America's Beaches. New York, New

York: Columbia University Press.

Doody, J.P. (2004). Sea cliffs a neglected European habitat? Proceedings of Littoral

2004, 7th International Symposium. Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting

Science and Policy, Volume 2: 578-584.

Elia, R.J. (2000). US protection of underwater cultural heritage beyond the territorial

sea. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 29(1):43-56.

English Heritage. (2003). Coastal Defence and the Historic Environment English

Heritage Guidance. Swindon, England: English Heritage.

Fitzpatrick, S.M., M. Kappers and Q. Kaye. (2006). Coastal erosion and site destruction

in Carricou, West Indies. Journal of Field Archaeology, 31(3): 251-262.

Georgia Ports Authority & Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (1998).

Savannah Harbor expansion project, Chatham County, Georgia, and Jasper

County, South Carolina. EPA number: 980363F.

Hall, D.C., J.V. Hall & S.N. Murray. (2002). Contingent Valuation of Marine Protected

Areas: Southern California Rocky Intertidal Ecosystems. Natural Resource

Modeling, 15(3):335-368.

Jeffrey, B. (2004a). World War II Shipwrecks in Truk Lagoon: The Role of Interest

Groups. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 1(2):51-67.

Jeffrey, B. (2004b). World War II Underwater Cultural Heritage Site in Truk Lagoon:

Considering a Case for World Heritage Listing. International Journal of Nautical

Archaeology, 33(1):106-121.

Kaoru, Y. and P. Hoagland (1994). The value of historic shipwrecks: conflicts and

management. Coastal Management, 22: 195-213.

19
Lowe, C. & S. Boardman. (1998). Coastal erosion and the archaeological assessment of

an eroding shoreline at St. Boniface Church, Papa Westray, Orkney. Edinburgh,

Scotland: Historic Scotland.

Maurício, A.M., A.M.G. Pacheco, P.S.D. Brito, B. Castro, C. Figueiredo & L. Aires-Barros.

An ionic conductivity-based methodology for monitoring salt systems in

monument stones. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6:287-293.

Muckelroy, K. (1978). Maritime archaeology. London, England: Cambridge University

Press.

NOAA. (2000). Summary Report: Town Meeting on America's Coastal Future: Using

the Internet to Promote Coastal Stewardship. Washington, D.C.: National

Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration, National Oceans Service.

Oxley, I. (2001). Towards the integrated management of Scotland's cultural heritage:

examining historic shipwrecks as marine environmental resources. World

Archaeology, 32(3): 413-426.

Oxley, I. & D. O'Regan. (2001). The marine archaeological resource. Institute of Field

Archaeologists, Paper No. 4. Reading, England: Institute of Field Archaeologists.

Parnell, K.E. & H. Kofoed-Hansen. (2001). Wakes from Large High-Speed Ferries in

Confined Coastal Waters: Management Approaches with Examples from New

Zealand and Denmark. Coastal Management, 29: 217-237.

Pendelton, E.A., E.R. Thieler & S.J. Williams. (2005). Coastal Vulnerability Assessment

of Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Sea-Level Rise. U.S. Geological

Survey, Open-File Report 2005-1058.

Pinder, D. (2003). Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK

coastal zone. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4:35-47.

20
Przywolnik, K. (2002). Coastal sites and severe weather in Cape Range peninsula,

northwest Australia. Archaeology in Oceania, 37:137-152.

Riley, R. (1999). A model-based approach to unraveling naval defence heritage: supply-

and demand-side issues in Portsmouth’s coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 42:891-908.

Savouret, E. (2004). When coastal erosion accelerates the transformation of historical

sites into memorial places: 1944/2004: Evolution of Pointe du Hoc – Landing

Beaches of Normandy - France. Proceedings of Littoral 2004, the 7th

International Symposium, Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Science

and Policy, Volume 2: 731-732.

Smith, H.D. & A.D. Couper. (2003). The management of the underwater cultural

heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4:25-33.

Street, T. (2006). Underwater Cultural Heritage Policies of the United States Coastal

Zone. Coastal Management, 34: 467-480.

Téllez-Duarte, M.A. (1993). Cultural Resources as a Criterion in Coastal Zone

Management: The Case of Northwestern Baja California, Mexico. In Coastal

Management in Mexico: the Baja California Experience, New Orleans,

Louisiana, 1993. (ed. J. L. Fermaaan Almada). American Society of Civil

Engineers. pp. 137-147.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1997). Georgia coastal management program;

Brantley, Bryan, Camden, Charlton, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty,

Long, McIntosh, and Wayne Counties, Georgia. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.

21
Vrana, K.J. and E.M. Mahoney (1995). Impacts on underwater cultural resources:

diagnosing change and prescribing solutions. In Underwater Archaeology:

Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference,

Washington, D.C., January 1995 (ed. P. Forsythe Johnston). Tucson, AZ: Society

for Historical Archaeology. pp. 176-180.

Williams, B. (2001). Commercial developments and their impact on maritime heritage:

the Northern Ireland experience. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology,

30(1):5-11.

World Heritage Convention (WHC). (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of

the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris, France. Retrieved 11

July 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.

22