J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

JOURNAL OF COASTAL SCIENCES

Journal homepage: www.jcsonline.co.nr ISSN: 2348 6740 Volume 1 Issue No. 1 - 2014 Pages 47-57

Insights into the dichotomy of coastal dune vulnerability and protection measures from multi-criteria decision analysis: a case study of West Bengal Coast, Bay of Bengal, India
` a Department of Remote Sensing and GIS, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West-Bengal 721102, India
b c

Dipanjan Das Majumdar a*, Swagata Beraa, Barendra Purkaitb, Ashis Kumar Paulc, Ujjwal Bhandarid
Department of Geology, University of Calcutta, 35 B. C. Road, Kolkata 700 019, India Department of Geography and Environment Management, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West-Bengal 721102, India d Department of Geography, University of Calcutta, 35 B. C. Road, Kolkata 700 019, India

ABSTRACT
Developing dune vulnerability index from the diverse and incommensurate data forms the basis of vulnerability assessments which is often a core challenge of coastal research. Present paper deals with the semi-quantitative assessment of vulnerability and protection measures of 31 coastal dune sites of West Bengal coast, India with the help of a Dune Vulnerability Checklist (DVC). DVC is a multi-criteria based framework where parameters like geomorphological condition (GC), marine influence (MI), aeolian influence (AI), vegetation condition (VC) and anthropogenic effects (AE) have been considered as the partial vulnerability indices (PV) to derive the total dune vulnerability index (DVI). Similarly the parameters of Protection Measure (PM) in the DVC highlight different management options taken to overcome dune degradation and related vulnerability. The magnitude of dune vulnerability is always determined by the relative share of percentage between DVI and PM for a particular site. These two derived indices (DVI and PM) have been used for the quantitative classification of the dune segments into prime management zones as a part of decision making process for dune conservation & management. Results indicate three different dune management zones e.g. a) zones where proper maintenance is required, b) zones where management is not at all required, and c) zones where urgent managements are required. Final assessment reveals the utility of the data-base generated from the checklist based multi-criteria analysis for mapping vulnerable dune segments and suggesting proper strategic measures for dune management at local as well as in regional scale.
*Corresponding author, E-mail address: dipddm@gmail.com Phone: +919732820604 2014 Journal of Coastal Sciences. All rights reserved

ARTICLE INFO
Received 17 December 2013 Accepted 13 March 2014 Available online 19 March 2014 Keywords Coastal dunes, Partial vulnerability, Dune vulnerability index, Protection measures, Dune management, Bay of Bengal India

1. Introduction
A number of researches have been undertaken surrounding the problems of vulnerable coastlines, coastal dunes and coastal communities. (Capobianco et al. 1999; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999; 2000a, b; Pethick and Crooks 2000; Pye 2001; Nicholls 2002; 2004; Adger et al. 2005; Williams et al. 1993; 1994; 2011).The vulnerability of these coastal dunes is the resultant output of interaction between aeolian and marine processes, vegetation, human pressure and the geomorphology of the system. Different methods have been proposed by different investigators to quantify dune vulnerability status in terms of natural and human induced disturbances. Vulnerability as well as stability of the dune system has been studied on the basis of coastal dune ecodynamic approach which was derived from the parameters like, geomorphological, phytogeography, climatological, morphodynamic and anthropogenic influences (Oliveira et al. 2009). Dune Vulnerability assessments due to the system exposure to over washing and erosion under storm events have been documented (Garcia et al. 2010; Sancho et al.
47

2012). The coastal managers use the dune vulnerability checklist (DVC) to delineate the problems related to the vulnerability level of the coastal dune system. The DVC is a useful method in which major factors directly responsible for dune system instability have been evaluated with respect to dune vulnerability and protection measures (Taylor 1961; Williams et al. 1993; 1994; 2001; Bodere et al. 1994; Alveirinho-Dias et al. 1994; Davies et al. 1995a, b; Pereira et al. 2000; Garcia Mora 2001). The parameter consideration in the checklist is directly linked with the potential vulnerability and the conditional vulnerability of the dune system (Davies 1995a, b; Williams et al. 1993). However, controversy exists on the selection of variables for any vulnerability index. Dal Cin et al. (1989) stated that use of more numerous variables enhances the clarity of the index. On the contrary, authors such as Cooper and Mc Laughlin (1998) contradict the idea that a good index is always based on necessary amount of relevant information. The DVC method has been applied in dune vulnerability assessment at a regional scale in different countries around the
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

world, such as France (Bodre et al. 1994), United Kingdom (Williams et al. 1993; 2011), Portugal (Alveirinho-Dias et al. 1994), Spain (Garca Mora et al. 2001; Valles et al. 2011), Turkey (Marlow and Morris 2003), Mexico (Martnez et al. 2006). The dune vulnerability has been defined as the loss of ability of the dune system to withstand with the threshold events (e.g. storm surge induced flood, cyclonic wind, tsunami etc.) after displacement from the original system steady state. Previously DVC was applied mainly in the vast areas along the temperate coasts for dune management and conservation. The site specific study previously done was unable to delineate the areal extent up to which a particular management strategy should be taken for dune conservation. In this respect, segment wise mapping for delineating prioritized management zones may be a better alternative for the coastal planners. In the present study, the usefulness of the DVC has been critically verified over a continuous shoreline of humid tropic with an aim to classify the shoreline into vulnerable segments, to predict the system responses to environmental perturbations and to prescribe suitable management strategies for dune conservation. The objectives of this research are: a) to prepare a Dune Vulnerability Index (DVI) which describes the coastal dune condition with respect to various environmental phenomena induced by both natural and human activities, b) to identify the dune stability and instability on the basis of their vulnerability and protection measures, and c) to map the coastal stretch into prioritized management zones so that special management plan can be undertaken for critical areas.

2. Study area
Geographically the coastal belt of West Bengal is situated between 8728- 8746 E and 2136-2142 N (Fig. 1). The area is characterized by tropical climate with temperature ranging between 32-38 C during summer and 12-15 C during winter. There are three major seasons - summer (March-June), rainy (monsoon) (JulySeptember) and winter (October-February). Onshore wind speed normally attains ~ 5m/s but during abnormal condition wind speed

may be intensified further leading to storms/cyclones when wind speed may reach up to 34 m/s. Rainfall in this area is mostly contributed by the monsoonal depression during the southwest monsoon season (June-September) and cyclonic storms during postmonsoon (October-November) and pre-monsoon (March-May). The 32 km coastal stretch, considered as the study area, comprises three important coastal sectors: Digha (D), Shankarpur (SK) and Mandarmani (M), having a SW-NE orientation along the Bay of Bengal coastline. The estuaries intervening the coastal sectors are Shankarpur (SK), Jalda (Jl) and Pichabani (Pi). The coastal stretch has been broadly divided into four littoral cells (LC1-LC4) with each cell having uniform geomorphic, sedimentary (Sanderson and Eliot 1999) and hydrodynamic characteristics. The predominant long shore current is oriented along the southwest and northeast directions. On the contrary, factors such as sea level rise, an increase in storm frequencies as well as anthropogenic interferences caused the enhanced release of sediments from dunes and beaches, which in turn made the system vulnerable day by day. The remarkable features of the Digha-Shankarpur-Mandarmani are the straightness of the shoreline and smoothness of the beach. The foreshore is at present experiencing active erosion. Backshore is absent with the foreshore (beach face) bounded by a scarp formed by coastal dune. Beach gradients vary from 1 in 50 near the high water line to 1 in 150 near the low water limit. Tides are semi-diurnal varying from 1.5 m (neap) to 5.25 m (spring). Waves (~ 63 m long and ~1.5 m high in open sea) approach the shore normally at an angle of nearly 700. Dominance of very fine sands indicates that the area is more or less stable and is experiencing recent sedimentation. The coastal tract is still in its formative state. Its present day manifestation is the result of fluvio-tidal and coastal processes (Wave) resulting from the on-lapping sequence of Flandrian transgression, >5900 yrs B.P. and off-lapping sequence of delta progradation till the stabilization of the sea level at around 3000 yrs B.P (Chakrabarti 1990). The fore-dune of the study area is the uppermost and inland most components of this sand sharing system. Dune sands are accumulated in association with the pioneer vegetation Ipomoea pes-

Fig. 1 Location map shows the three studied sectors; Digha, Shankarpur & Mandarmani of West Bengal coast along with the 31sampled dune sites. The estuaries intervening the coastal sectors are: Shankarpur (SK), Jalda (Jl) & Pichabani (Pi). Three coastal sectors are broadly divided into four littoral cells (LC1LC4) which demarcate the area of homogeneous sediment cycles of the study area.

48

ORIGINAL

ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

capra locally called Halkalmi (Purkait 2009) to create a positive landform perched above the sandy beach system. Fore-dune ridges are not continuous along the shoreline rather obstructed and in some places were replaced by the construction activities (e.g., roads, hotels etc.). Dune cliffs bear positive indications of the high energy tidal regime and frequent storm activities. In some parts sand mining activities are common practice. Dumping of sand bags, gabions, construction of sand fences are common management strategies all along the study area.

3. Methodology
The coastal dunes of the study area were initially divided into homogeneous segments based on their morpho-sedimentological, ecological and anthropogenic features. After that 31 coastal foredune sites were sampled for vulnerability analysis. Out of 31 dune sites, nine from Digha sector, nine from Shankarpur sector and 13 from Mandarmani sector (Fig. 1) were selected. At each selected location, a 500-750 m long segment was selected considering that a homogenous set of conditions (physical, ecological and human pressure) prevailed. The DVC used in this paper as a problem delineation procedure (Taylor 1961) in which parameters solely responsible for dune degradation have been tabulated, rated and evaluated with respect to dune vulnerability and protection (Meur 1993; Williams et al. 1993; Bodr et al. 1994; Davies et al. 1995a). The checklist parameters used here were modified from the standard checklist of Garca Mora et al. (2001) and Williams et al. (2001) as the parameters included in the previous work may not fit for the present study area. Detailed breakdown of the Dune Vulnerability Checklist (DVC) has been given in appendix 1. Present checklist comprises 64 variables grouped into five partial vulnerability (PV) indices as follows: Geomorphological condition (GC=10 variables) (appendix 1) is related to the geomorphological and sedimentary factors affecting the efficiency of the system to buffer extreme waves and wind: typology and extent of the coastal dunes (length, width & height etc.), the existence and extent of sand ridges and wet slacks, and sand particle size along the stoss, crest and lee of the fore-dune system. Marine influence (MI=12 variables) (appendix 1) considers factors related to marine erosion processes: wave action variables (i.e. height, length, energy), wind fetch, tidal range, wave energy, coastal exposure, beach slope, berm slope, presence of wash over fan lobe, coastal orientation to wave direction and particle size of the beach. Aeolian influence (AI=11 variables) (appendix 1) is related to the role of aeolian processes, largely depending on the ratio between sand supply and deflation. It takes into account sand supply input, cover of embryo dunes, % of blowouts and deflation breaches not induced by trampling in the fore-dune, sea litter, shells covering on the beach and vegetation covering aspects. Vegetation condition (VC=9 variables) (appendix 1) is related to the key concept that the vegetation has an important contribution in the coastal dunes formation and development. Vegetation performance in trapping and stabilizing windblown sands depends on some plant morphological and physiological traits. Coastal dune plants belong to three specic functionally based types. Type I consists mainly of winter annuals, small size and are soft-leaved, with no presumed adaptations to the dune environment, prone to wave erosion. Type II is mostly perennials with a below-ground root network and leaves with adaptations to coastal environmental stress. Type III includes plants capable of being dispersed by seawater,
49

which are able to withstand burial and are able to arrest fine sands to initiate the neo-dunes (see details in Garca Mora et al. 1999). Anthropogenic effects (AE=22 variables) (appendix 1) are related to human processes that cause extensive ecological and geomorphological alterations in coastal dunes: temporary factors (pedestrian and vehicle trampling, horse riding, grazing, seasonal outdoor facilities, the presence of sea litter on the beach, sand extraction and beach cleaning) as well as permanent factors (road building, housing, parking, agriculture, afforestation etc.). A separate checklist has been prepared to measure the protection measures (PM=11 variables) which relates to the different management options taken in combating dune degradations such as managed paths, constructions of sand traps, plantation, protection measures against coastal erosion, the presence of information board, Govt. Legislations such as coastal regulation zone (CRZ) etc. (appendix 1). Measurements of all the parameters of DVC were gathered during the pre-monsoon (March-May) field survey from 2010 to 2012. Each parameter was measured separately and the rating scale was recorded by ticking the appropriate box in the checklist (appendix 1). Each selected variable was associated with a vepoint sliding scale graded from 0 to 4 (appendix 1) with the latter being the most vulnerable. The present DVC comprises both the quantitative and qualitative variables for vulnerability assessment of the dune system. The ranges of values for each variable ranking were fixed based on three tier methodology. In the first step the empirical relations between the checklist parameters and the dune vulnerability have been observed. In the second tier the value range for the quantitative variables have been documented on the basis of the available structured checklists from different parts of the globe, and in the last step final ranges have been fixed based on the long field experiences of the distinguished researchers deeply indulged in research in the Bay of Bengal coastline. Partial vulnerability indices (GC, MI, AI, VC and AE) were calculated as the ratio between the summations of given variable ranks within each variable class (PVi) and the total maximum possible rank within the class (PVmax).

PV = PVi / PV max
i =1

A total DVI (i.e. total Dune Vulnerability Index) was calculated as the average of the ve partial vulnerability indices (PV) as per Garcia Mora et al. 2001 and Williams et al. 1993; 2001. DVI = PV / 5 = (GC + MI + AI + VC + AE ) / 5 The index is designed to determine the vulnerability of the dune system to multiple impacts (physical and human) through the application of structured checklist and provides important information in which coastal dune responds to imposed changes (Williams and Bennett 1996). Each index ranged between 0 and 1, and as the index increased, the ability of the dune system to withstand further intervention decreases. The protection measure index (PM) was calculated separately following the same formula of PV i.e., summation of variables ranking within each variable class (PMi), expressed as a percentage of the total maximum possible rank within the class (PMmax).

PM = PMi / PM max
i =1

Lastly, the residual value as the difference between DVI and PM (i.e. DVI-PM) has been calculated to describe the stability of the dune system. A sample of the breakdown technique of the checklist as well as the total computational procedure for M13 station (Fig. 1) has been given in Table 1.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

Geomorphological condition
1 2 3 4 5 5a 5b 5c 6 7 8 9 10 10a 10b scores Length of homogeneous active dune system (km) Width of dynamic dune system (km) Width of fore dune as % of active dune system Average height of secondary dunes (m) Average height of Fore dunes (m) If any ridges, no of major ridges Slope steepness of the fore dune (degrees) If perched on cliff-cliff height (m) Relative area of wet slacks measured from map (%) Degree of dune system fragmentation If furrows and valleys - no of furrows and valleys Surface area of the dunes Particle size sorting of the frontal dune (Stoss side) Particle size sorting of the frontal dune (Crest side) Particle size sorting of the frontal dune (lee side) Total score/ percentage 0 >15 >2 <5% >25 >25 >10 <15 <2 Low Moderate >10 >500 Very poor Very poor Very poor 1 >10 >1 <25% >10 >15 >4 2 >5 >0.5 <50 >5 >10 >2 15-30 2 to 5 Medium Gentle >2 >100 moderate moderate moderate 3 >2 >0.1 <75 >1 >5 2 4 >0.5 <0.1 >75 <1 <5 1 >30 >5 High Steep 1 <100 Very well Very well Very well

>4 poor poor poor

2 well well well

Marine influence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 scores Orthogonal fetch (km) Berm slope (degrees) Inter-tidal beach Slope (degrees) Width of intertidal zone (km) Tidal range (m) Coastal orientation to wave direction (degrees) Width of the zone between HWSM and dune face (m) Breaches in the frontal dune due to wash over, relative total area Trends of sea-level change (last two decades) Storm impact scale (Dune degradation) Width of the Breaches in sea ward face Particle size of the beach: Phi sizes Total score/ percentage 0 <25 Moderate <5 >0.5 >2 >45 >75 0% Decreasing Swash regime <2 1 1 <100 2 <250 Gentle 5-10 >.1 2 to 4 15 to 30 <25 <25% Oscillatory Collision regime 2 to 10 3 3 >500 4 >1000 Steep >10 <.05 >4 <5 <5 >50% Increasing Overwash regime >10 5

>.2 30 to 45 <50 <5%

>.05 5 to 15 <15 <50%

Aeolian Effects
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 scores Sand supply input % Cover of embryo dunes along the seaward edge Blowouts: % of the system Aeolian breaches in seaward face not induced by trampling: % of the system Natural litter drift cover as % surface Shell cover as % surface on upper beach % seaward dune vegetated % of the system un-vegetated Coastline change since 1973 If recent sand deposition , assess colonisation by Ipomoea Colonisation of vegetation in zone between dune face and HWSM Total score/ percentage 0 High >50 <5% <5% 0% 0% >90 <10 Advancing High High 1 >25 <10% <10% <5% <5% >60 >10 2 Moderate >5 <25% <25% >5% >5% >30 >20 Oscillatory Moderate Moderate 3 <5 <50% <50% >25% >25% >10 >40 4 Low None >50% >50% >50% >50% <10 >75 Retreating Low Low

Vegetation Condition
1 2 3 4 scores Vegetation change since 1990 % cover Type III plants in the seaside of the frontal dune Relative proportion of Type II plants in the seaside of the frontal dune (% cover) Relative proportion of Type I plants in the seaside of the frontal dune (% cover) 0 increasing >90 <5 <1 1 >60 <15 >1 2 Oscillatory >30 <30 >5 3 >15 <60 >10 4 Decreasing <15 >60 >30 Cont. 50 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

5 6 7 8 9

Relative proportion of exotic species in the seaside of the frontal dune (% cover) Relative proportion of Type II & III plants in 100 m inland of the dune front Relative cover (%) of exposed roots in the seaside of the frontal dune Relative proportion (%) of plants with obvious effect of physical damage % Vegetation removal seaward of the frontal dune due to human disturbance Total score/ percentage

0 >75 <5 <5 <10

<1 >50 >5 >5 >10

<5 >25 >15 >15 >25

<15 >10 >25 >25 >50

>15 <10 >50 >50 >75

Anthropogenic effects
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 scores Visitor pressure Visitor frequency Access difficulty On dune driving On beach driving Horse riding Path network as percent of the frontal dune Path width (m) Paths incised as percent of the frontal dune height Anthropogenic litter : cover as % surface cover Amount of sand (%) extracted for building etc. Summer beach cleaning frequency. (High is twice a day medium, daily) % upper beach cleaned % permanent infrastructure replacing active dunes (roads, houses, etc) % ephemeral infrastructure replacing active dunes (out-door facilities, camping, etc) Relative surface (%) forested in the system (200 m inland from the fore dune) Relative cover (%) of agriculture in the system (200 m inland from the fore dune) Grazing on the active system Frequency of tube wells- top of the dune commercial camping Dispersed camping Main owners and managers Total score/ percentage 0 Low Low High None None None 0% <1 <5 0% 0% Low <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 None Low Low Low Protection Agencies 1 2 Moderate Moderate Moderate Some Some Some >5% <3 <50 >5% >5% Moderate <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Public 3 4 High High Low Much Much Much >50% >5 <75 >50% >50% High <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 Intensive High High High private

<5% <2 <25 <5% <5%

>25% <5 >50 >25% >25%

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Low

>50 >50 >50 >50 >50 High

Protection measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Score Surveillance & maintenance % area with restricted access Controlled parking Horse riding controlled On dune driving controlled Managed paths Sand traps/ Bio shields Planting on mobile area (%) Information boards Protection works (Coastal erosion) Protection by legislation (Coastal Regulation Act) Total score/ percentage 0 None 0 None None None None Few 0 None Negligible Weak 1 <10 2 Some >10 Some Some Some Some Some >10 Some Some Moderate 3 >25 4 Much >50 All All All All Many >50 Many Much Strong

<10

>25

Appendix. 1 Dune vulnerability checklist (DVC) used in this study. The standard checklist has been modified according to the local environmental conditions. Important modifications have been highlighted with bold text in the checklist.

51

ORIGINAL

ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

SCORE PM SCORE 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 0 4 2 0 5 2 1 6 1 2 7 0 2 8 4 1 9 3 1 10 0 PVi 2 11 3 PVmax PV 0 20 PVi PMr 0 44 PVi PVmax PMmax PV 0 PM 0.46 PVmax PV 1 4 PVi 1 PVmax PV 2 0 Partial Vulnerability for GC PVGC= PVi / PVmax = 39/60 = 0.65 0 PVn= (PVGC+ PVMI+ PVAI+ PVVC + PVAE)= (0.65+0.44+0.48+0.53+0.24) = 0 2.34 2 DVI= PVn/5 = 2.34/5 = 0.47 where DVI is average of ive PV e.g. GC, MI, AI,VC & AE 21 PVi PM= PMr/PMmax = 20/44 = 0.46 88 PVmax Residual i.e., DVI~PM= 0.47-0.46 = 0.01 0.24 Table. 1 A detailed breakdown of the computational procedure of the checklist as applied to M13 station, Mandarmani.

GC 1 2 3 4 5 5a 5b 5c 6 7 8 9 10 10a 10b

SCORE 3 4 4 0 4 4 2 0 4 2 4 2 0 2 4 39 60 0.65

MI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SCORE 3 2 2 0 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 21 48 0.44

AI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SCORE 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 3 3 4 4 21 44 0.48

VC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SCORE 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 19 36 0.53

AE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test has been performed to assess significant differences in the mean values of the vulnerability parameters among the coastal sectors. A matrix with the values of the five partial vulnerability indices in the 31 sampled coastal segments was subjected to hierarchical cluster analysis (Squared Euclidean distance method) in order to grouping the segments into three categories having similar vulnerability characteristics.

dune vulnerability has been given in the light of the three clusters of dune groups e.g. Group 1 (low to medium vulnerability), Group 2 (medium to high vulnerability) & Group 3 (high to very high vulnerability).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Dune vulnerability Total DVI and partial vulnerability indices for each sampling site are shown in table 2. The spatial variability of five partial vulnerability classes along the entire study area has been given in figure 2. The high range for AE (0.58) (Fig. 3) shows high spatial variability among the dune sites. The ranges for other variables are as GC = 0.27, MI =0.33, AI = 0.34 and VC = 0.14 (Fig. 3). Low range of VC and GC indicates that vulnerability of the entire study area is consistently powered by the variables associated with these two PV classes. The ANOVA result shows statistically significant inter-sector (Digha, Shankarpur and Mandarmani) variations for GC (F= 19.23, p = 0.00), AI (F= 9.21, p = 0.00) and AE (F= 3.66, p = 0.04) but not for MI (F= 1.94, p= 0.16) and VC (F= 2.66, p= 0.09). Further derivation of the ANOVA result indicates that for GC the mean difference (Md) between Mandarmani and Shankarpur sectors are not statistically significant (Md= 0.04, p= 0.14) which indicates that both these sectors have similar type of geomorphological sensitivities in terms of dune vulnerability. Similarly in terms of aeolian activities, Shankarpur and Digha sector (Md=-0.06, p=0.33) and in terms of anthropogenic effects, Mandarmani and Shankarpur (Md= 0.03 p= 0.85) along with Mandarmani and Digha (Md=-0.12 p=0.09) sectors have similar kind of responses towards the dune vulnerability. The Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of five partial vulnerabilities in three coastal cluster analysis revealed three main dune groups each showing a sectors: a) Digha (D), b) Shankarpur (SK) & c) Mandarmani (M) different DVI range (Table 3) (Fig. 4). Here the detail analysis of the
52 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

4.1.1 Group 1 (low to medium vulnerability) Group 1 dunes (Fig. 4) have the average DVI value of 0.54 (Table 3) which is comparatively low from the other two groups of cluster. The high value of GC (0.62) (Table 3) is determined by the low width and length of the dune along with high levels of fore-dune fragmentations and low surface area. High dune fragmentation and paucity of sediment storage lowered the ability of the dune system to act as a buffer against higher energy offences. Out of other partial vulnerabilities, group 1 dunes experience low risk from MI (0.48) and AE (0.40) (Fig. 2) (Table 3). Low sand supply, high amount of shell percentage in the beach, the presence of a thick layer of natural litters and also the un-vegetated shore frontal system increase the vulnerability in terms of AI and VC. Only 30% (Table 3) protection measure is available against the vulnerable condition for the group 1 dunes. Except M13, all the other stations of group 1 dune has high vulnerability than protection as shown by the larger polygon area representing vulnerability against the smaller circle area representing protection measures (Fig. 5a).
Fig. 3 Box plot showing the inter-quartile range (Q3-Q1) for the calculated partial vulnerability (PV) indices. Variables with high inter-quartile range 4.1.2 Group 2 (medium to high vulnerability) experiences high variation in terms of their impact magnitude along the study The total DVI for Group 2 dunes (Fig. 4) is 0.56 which is mainly area and vice-versa.

contributed by high VC (0.61) and AE (0.61) (Fig. 2) (Table 3). The

Dune sites Partial vulnerability indices DVI PM DVI~ PM Dune management zones

GC MI AI VC AE D1 0.53 0.46 0.43 0.67 0.57 0.53 0.39 0.15 Required Urgent Management D2 0.45 0.52 0.61 0.67 0.68 0.59 0.39 0.20 D3 0.50 0.52 0.64 0.58 0.72 0.59 0.75 -0.16 Required maintenance D4 0.42 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.82 0.63 0.68 -0.06 No management D5 0.45 0.60 0.41 0.64 0.57 0.53 0.39 0.15 Required Urgent Management D6 0.55 0.60 0.48 0.64 0.67 0.59 0.64 -0.05 No management D7 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.56 0.81 0.62 0.50 0.12 Required Urgent Management D8 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.56 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.10 D9 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.58 0.66 0.53 0.50 0.03 No management SK1 0.50 0.42 0.43 0.64 0.36 0.47 0.34 0.13 Required Urgent Management SK2 0.57 0.44 0.43 0.64 0.55 0.52 0.71 -0.18 Required maintenance SK3 0.60 0.52 0.43 0.64 0.60 0.56 0.77 -0.21 SK4 0.60 0.58 0.41 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.86 -0.29 SK5 0.57 0.63 0.46 0.67 0.65 0.59 0.84 -0.25 SK6 0.65 0.65 0.48 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.73 -0.14 SK7 0.58 0.69 0.48 0.58 0.52 0.57 0.57 0.00 No management SK8 0.60 0.52 0.48 0.58 0.39 0.51 0.36 0.15 Required Urgent Management SK9 0.65 0.50 0.59 0.64 0.44 0.57 0.27 0.29 M1 0.55 0.35 0.46 0.53 0.73 0.52 0.32 0.21 Required Urgent Management M2 0.62 0.35 0.57 0.56 0.66 0.55 0.32 0.23 M3 0.68 0.58 0.68 0.53 0.82 0.66 0.64 0.02 No management M4 0.67 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.52 0.59 0.43 0.16 Required Urgent Management M5 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.67 0.52 0.56 0.43 0.13 M6 0.63 0.54 0.68 0.64 0.71 0.64 0.34 0.30 M7 0.67 0.54 0.68 0.61 0.69 0.64 0.48 0.16 M8 0.62 0.56 0.71 0.61 0.59 0.62 0.39 0.23 M9 0.62 0.56 0.71 0.58 0.46 0.58 0.32 0.27 M10 0.58 0.46 0.73 0.58 0.48 0.57 0.18 0.38 M11 0.65 0.44 0.68 0.58 0.44 0.56 0.25 0.31 M12 0.68 0.50 0.68 0.61 0.40 0.58 0.23 0.35 M13 0.65 0.44 0.48 0.53 0.24 0.47 0.46 0.01 No management Table.2 Results of all the calculated partial vulnerability indices for each sample site. GC- geomorphological condition, MI- marine influence, AI- aeolian influence, VC- vegetation condition, AE- anthropogenic effects, DVI- total dune vulnerability index, PM- protection measures, DVI~PM- residual between dune vulnerability index & protection measures. On the basis of the residual value the entire study area has been classified into three dune management zones: a) requires maintenance, b) requires no management & c) requires urgent management. For location see Fig 1. 53 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

main reason for this stressed vegetation condition is the lack of subsurface moisture and high rate of sand accumulation during the hot spell of summer (Paul 2002). Uncontrolled movements of visitors through dunes to the beach led to the creation of deflation breaches that cut across and fragmented the fore-dunes. Such morphological alterations of the dune system greatly contribute to increment negative effects of natural disturbances such as wind erosion and storm tide. Extraction of groundwater along the study area is so high that the upper portion of the dunes is getting dried and loosened, which in turn makes the system unstable against the erosive agents. Other partial vulnerabilities shared by Group 2 dunes are GC (0.58), MI (0.54) and AI (0.47) respectively (Fig. 2) (Table 3). Cliff faces are found along the seaward side of the fore-dune ridge resulting by cutback processes of storm waves during high spring tide phase. Later with the successive crestal slumps and active landward transport of basal sands by high water waves and currents, the retreat of dune cliffs are triggered off. The average cliff height ranges from 5 to 8 m around the study area. Presence of wash over breaches along with retreating dune cliffs clearly indicates that the area is under active erosive phase. Weakened vegetation covers at the annual phase of aridity and the alternate drought affected years responsible for the growth of blowouts and mobile dunes in this area. Total 56% protections (Table 3) are available for this group. Figure 5b shows that D6, D9 and SK7 maintain the balance between vulnerability and protection. Dune sites like SK2, SK3, SK4, SK5 and SK6 are highly protected by means of some soft and hard engineering structures. The other dune sites belonging to this group (D1, M5, D5, D8, M1, M2 and M4) are highly vulnerable (Fig 5b) as the polygonal area of vulnerability is much larger than the circle area of protection. Management strategies should be considered for these sites in order to achieve adequate policies and well-informed priorities for integrated coastal zone management.

4.1.3 Group 3 (high to very high vulnerability) Dune sites of group 3 (Fig. 4) shares maximum total DVI (0.62) among other groups. AE shares 73% (Table 3) to the total vulnerability of these dune systems. Throughout the year the visitors pressure is high all along the study area due to its popularity as one of the important tourist places of Eastern India. The AE acts as an important destabilizing factor of dune system, directly related to the dune instability and degradation (Barrre, 1992; Nordstrom et al. 2000; Panario and Pieiro 1997; Psuty, 2004; Paul 2002). The annual tourist flow of this region is approximately 3 million. Maximum replacements of active dune fields, agricultural lands, overdune forest land have been found along the coastal sectors of Digha, Shankarpur and Mandarmani in the last two decades. Routine sand mining from beach disturbs the beach-dune sand sharing system and often provokes erosion in and around the mining places that had been in stable equilibrium for a long time in the past. Several localized and intensive human activities like erection of settlements, removal of vegetation by intense stock grazing practices and making track ways over the dunes enhance the fragility of the dune system. Aeolian influence and vegetation condition share 66% and 60% (Table 3) of the total vulnerability respectively. High level of trampling across Digha (D), Shankarpur (SK) and Mandarmani (M) dunes causing soil compaction and loss of organic matter, directly affects vegetal covering and alter species composition (Andersen 1995a; Brown and McLachlan 1990; Kutiel et al. 1999; Williams et al. 1997), leading to changes in vegetation status that can affect negatively to vegetation's stabilizing ability leading to dune degradation (Garcia Mora et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2001). GC (56%) and MI (56%) have minimum role in the total vulnerability of this group of dune system (Fig. 2) (Table 3). Total protection available for this area is 52%. Figure 5c shows that the dune sites D2, D7, M6, M7 and M8 are carrying high vulnerability and low protection (Table 2). The case is reverse for D3 where the proportion of PM is higher than the in-situ vulnerability. Rests of the two dune sites (M3 and D4) are balanced in terms of vulnerability and protection measures. 4.2 Dichotomy between DVI & PM 4.2.1 Dune stability and instability DVI and PM can jointly explain the stability and instability of the dune system (Fig. 6). Stability achieves when there is complete balance between DVI and PM i.e., protective measures should be adopted keeping pace with the magnitude of vulnerability. Hence, two different situations are important for achieving stability i.e. Low vulnerability - Low protection or High vulnerability - High protection. The first situation declares natural or potential stability and the second one throws light on the conditional or artificial stability of the dune system. Dune instability occurs when the vulnerability and protection measures mismatch with each other. Two types of instability can be predicted: one is positive and the other negative. Positive instability means where the DVI value is higher than the PM and negative instability refers to the low value of DVI with high value of PM (Table 1). Dune sites where management options are strong are still in a state to buffer the high energy events. Proper maintenance of those dune sites is required to reduce the evident conditional vulnerabilities as well as to restore the original dynamic equilibrium of the system. On the other hand dune sites having high DVI are in a critical stage. In these vulnerable locations, the occupation and even the total destruction of the back-beach and foreORIGINAL ARTICLE

Fig. 4 Dendrogram of 31 dune sites classified according to their partial vulnerability indices (geomorphological condition, marine influence, aeolian effect, vegetation condition and anthropogenic effect) into three groups: Group 1 (low to medium vulnerability), Group 2 (medium to high vulnerability) & Group 3 (high to very high vulnerability). Each group carries similar characteristics in terms of dune vulnerability 54

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

dunes (for example Mandarmani and Shankarpur sectors) by permanent and transitory infrastructure development is already affecting natural coastal dynamics and will probably result in high social and economic costs. As the area is more prone to frequent tropical cyclones, when extreme disturbance events occur, damaged and destroyed back beach and fore-dunes, which act as a natural coastal defence protector in severe wave events, will no longer be capable of providing coastal protection. 4.2.2 Dune classification and decision making Dune classification, as a part of decision making process for dune management, has been done on the basis of simple residual value between DVI and PM (DVI~PM). Three different dune zones have been classified, e.g., a) Requires maintenance when DVI~PM is 0.11; b) Requires no management when DVI~PM -0.10 to 0.10; and c) Requires urgent management when DVI~PM becomes 0.11 (Fig. 6). The threshold value of classification has been fixed after thorough investigation of the responses of each partial vulnerability along the study area. No management zone indicates that the dune area is
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Fig. 5 Graphs showing the balance between vulnerability and protection measure. Five axis plots of the partial vulnerabilities represent a polygon, where larger the area of the polygon signifies greater vulnerability for the dune system. Circle represents the range of protection measures (PM). Smaller the radius of the circle, lesser the PM and vice versa. The balance between polygon area and circle area describes the stability for the sand dunes: 5a) cluster group 1, 5b) cluster group 2, 5c) cluster group 3. 55

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

balanced in terms of vulnerability and taken protection measures. The dune sites coming under this category are D4, D6, D9, SK7, M3 and M13 sharing 19.35% out of the total 31 stations (Fig. 6 & Table 1). On the contrary, the maintenance of dune sites requires high protection measures than the existing vulnerability. Natural dynamism has already been disturbed due to over management activities in those dune segments. The evident potential vulnerability of this system has resulted in a highly managed visitors access with extensive fencing and controlled parking. The dune-sites mainly contribute to this category are D3 and SK2 to SK6 which share 19.35% (Fig. 6) (Table 1) of all dune sites. Finally, rest of the dune

One problem should be kept in mind that the nonlinear behavior of environmental phenomenon cannot be interpreted through the one time application of DVC. Repeated application considering the seasonality can fix the problem. Clear understanding of the range of variability and perturbations within the physical and human behaviour across different spatial and temporal scales, and the magnitude of risk to which the coastal dunes are subjected to change, may be considered as the prerequisite for the preparation of sound management plans for dune conservation.

Groups GC MI AI VC AE DVI Range (DVI) PM 1 (low to medium vulnerability) 0.62 0.48 0.60 0.59 0.40 0.54 0.47-0.58 0.30 2 (medium to high vulnerability) 0.58 0.54 0.47 0.61 0.61 0.56 0.52-0.59 0.56 3 (high to very high vulnerability) 0.56 0.56 0.66 0.60 0.73 0.62 0.59-0.66 0.52 Table. 3 Cluster-wise group average of all the partial vulnerability (PV) indices along with total dune vulnerability index (DVI) and protection measures (PM) to examine the changing behavior of the sand dune groups under different conditions. For detail result of each dune site consult Table 2.

sites where the DVI values are higher than the PM value, are considered under the category of urgent management requirements. A total of 61.29% (Fig. 6) of all the dune sites is under this category where immediate management options should be taken up to restore the stability of the dune system. Current management strategies should be exclusively focused on sand pumping from the offshore

6. Conclusions
The DVC offers a best suited method to identify the main source of problems related to the vulnerable state of coastal dunes. Accurate decision making is always based on good quality of knowledge base of the problem. In this respect DVC provides adequate knowledge to

Fig. 6 Total study area has been classified into three zones in terms of management priority: a) Zone 1 (Requires maintenance), b) zone 2 (No management) & c) Zone 3 (Requires urgent management). The classification is based on the residual value of DVI~PM. Bar chart represents the share of DVI & PM value for each dune site.

areas for beach nourishment (mainly in the Mandarmani & Shankarpur regions) after thorough environmental impact assessment. From the socio-economic point of view, complete replacement of permanent infrastructures is virtually impractical but management plans should be implemented wherever possible to protect those threatened dune systems.

5. Limitation of the method

The Dune Vulnerability Checklist (DVC) is a useful method for identifying the multidimensional coverage of the dune vulnerability in both regional and local scales. However, an important drawback of this method is its relative nature and low confidence interval. Absolute measurements of threats like potential erosion rates of shoreline, sand dune drift potential and vegetation dynamics can be a better alternative. But the time required to perform this is much longer, more expensive and ultimately provide interesting results similar to those obtained through this semi-qualitative assessment.
56

satisfy the demands of the coastal planners as well as academicians for the implementation of good management plans and policies. The structured checklist approach improves the levels of objectivity in dune vulnerability measurement and it can provide a useful basis for the implementation of strategic management plans for these coastal environments. The overall assessment that the DVC method is the best way to answer all the questions regarding dune degradation and management and is applicable to any part of the world having sandy coastlines.

Acknowledgements
Assistance from the post-graduate students of the Department of Geography and Environment management of the Vidyasagar University during field work was gratefully acknowledged. Infrastructural facilities were provided by the Department of Geology, University of Calcutta and the Remote Sensing and GIS Department of the Vidyasagar University. Comments from the
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J O U R N A L

O F

C O A S T A L

S C I E N C E S

anonymous reviewers helped in modifying the manuscript.

References
Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., Tomptins, E.L., 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across the scales. Global Environmental change-Human and Policy Dimensions 15(2), 77-86. Alveirinho-Dias, J.M., Curr, R., Davies, P., Pereira, A., Williams, A.T., 1994. Dune management vulnerability assessment: Portugal and North West Europe. In: Soares de Carvalho, G., Veloso Gomes, F. (Eds.), Littoral, 94, pp. 837-848. Andersen, U.V., 1995a. Resistance of Danish coastal vegetation types to human trampling. Biological Conservation 71, 223-230. Barrre, P., 1992. Dynamics and management of the coastal dunes of the Landes, Gascony, France. In: Carter, R.W.G., Curtis, T.G.F., SheehySKeffington, M.J. (Eds.), Coastal Dunes, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 25-32. Bodr, J.C.l., Cribb, R., Curr, R.H.F., Davies, P., Hallgout, B., Meur, C., Pirou, N., Williams, A.T., Yoni, C., 1994. Vulnerabilit des dunes littorales: Mise au point dune method dvaluation. In: Miossec, A. (Ed.), Dfense des ctesou protection de lespace littoral. Cahiers Nantais, URA 904, CNRS, Commission surl Environnementctier de lUGI (41-42), pp. 197-201. Brown, A.C., McLachlan, A., 1990. Ecology of sandy shores. Elsevier, The Netherlands. Capobianco, M., De Vriend, H.J., Nicholls, R.J., Stive, M.J.F., 1999. Coastal area impact and vulnerability assessment: the point of view of a morphodynamic modeller. Journal of Coastal Research 15(3), 701-716. Chakrabarti, P., 1990. Process-response system analysis in the macrotidal estuarine and mesotidal coastal plain of eastern India. Memoir of the Geological Survey of India 22, 165-187. Cooper, J.A.G., Mclaughlin, S., 1998. Contemporary multidisciplinary approaches to coastal classification and environmental risk analysis. Journal of Coastal Research 14(2), 512-524. Dal Cin, R., Simeon, U., 1989. Coastal zoning and vulnerability: Application to the Middle Adriatic (Italy). In: Magoon Jr, O.T. (Ed.), Coastal Zone'89, ASCE, New York, USA, pp. 98-110. Davies, P., Curr, R.H.F., Williams, A.T., Halle!gouet, B., Bodere, J.C.L., Koh, A., 1995a. Dune management strategies: a semi-quantitative assessment of the interrelationship between coastal dune vulnerability and protection measures. In: Salman, A.P.H.M., Berends, P., Bonazountas, M. (Eds.), Coastal Management and Habitat Conservation. EUCC, Netherlands, pp. 313331. Davies, P., Williams, A.T., Curr, R.H.F., 1995b. Decision making in dune management: theory and practice. Journal of Coastal Conservation 1(1), 8796. Garcia Mora, M.R., Gallego Fernandez, J.B., Garcia Novo, F., 1999. Plant functional types in relation to foredune dynamics and the main coastal stresses. Journal of Vegetation Science 10(1), 27-34. Garca Mora, M.R., Gallego Fernndez, J.B., Garca Novo, F., 2000. Plant diversity as a suitable tool for coastal dune vulnerability assessment. Journal of Coastal Research 16, 990-995. Garca Mora, M.R., GallegoFernndez, J.B., Williams, A.T., Garca Novo, F., 2001. A coastal dune vulnerability classification. A case of study of the SW Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Coastal Research 17(4), 802-811. Garcia, T., Ferreira, O., Matias, A., Dias, J.A., 2010. Overwash vulnerability assessment based on long-term washover evolution. Natural Hazards 54, 225-244. Kutiel, P., Zhevelev, H., Harrison, R., 1999. The effect of recreational impacts on soil and vegetation of stabilised Coastal Dunes in the Sharon Park, Israel. Ocean and Coastal Management 42, 1041-1060. Marlow, R., Morris, A., 2003. The vulnerability and management of three sand dune sites in southwestern Turkey. In: zhan, E. (Ed.), Procceedings of the Sixth International Conferenceon the Mediterranean Coastal Environment, MEDCOAST 2003. Ravenna, Italy, pp. 1381-1391. Martnez, M.L., GallegoFernndez, J.B., Garca Franco, J.G., Moctezuma, C., Jimnez, C.D., 2006. Assessment of coastal dune vulnerability to natural and anthropogenic disturbances along the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Conservation 33, 109-117. Meur, C., 1993. Geomorphologie, protection etgestion des dunes de Bretagne, septentrionale, elements de comparaison avec dautres regions de la mancheoccidentale: Cotentin, Devon et Cornwall (R.-U.). Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Universit de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest. 57

Nicholls, R.J., 2002. Analysis of global impacts of sea-level rise: A case study of flooding. Physics and Chemistry of Earth 27(32-42), 1455-1466. Nicholls, R.J., Lowe, J.A., 2004. Benefits of mitigation of climate change for coastal areas, Global Environmental change. Human and Policy Dimensions 14(3), 359-367. Nordstrom, K.F., Lampe, R., Vandemark, L.M., 2000. Reestablishing naturally functioning dunes on developed coasts. Environmental management 25(1), 37-51. Oliveira, A., Melo e Souza, R., 2009. Coastal dune ecodynamics of the southern coastline from Sergipe, Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research 56, 342-346. Panario, D., Pieiro, G., 1997. Vulnerability of oceanic dune system under wind pattern change scenarios in Uruguay. Climate Research 9, 67-72. Paul, A.K., 2002. Coastal geomorphology and environment. Sundarban coastal plain, Kanthi coastal plain, Subarnarekha delta plain. ACB publications, India. Pereira, A.R., Laranjeira, M.M., Neves, M., 2000. A resilience checklist to evaluate coastal dune vulnerability 102(1), 309-318. Pethick, J.S., Crooks, S., 2000. Development of a coastal vulnerability index: a geomorphological perspective. Environmental Conservation 27, 359-367. Psuty, N.P., 2004. The coastal foredune: a morphological basis for regional coastal dune development. In: Martnez, M.L., Psuty, N.P. (Eds.), Coastal Dunes, Ecology and Conservation. Ecological Studies. Vol. 171, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 11-27. Purkait, B., 2009. Coastal erosion in response to wave dynamics operative in Sagar Island, Sunderban delta, India. Frontiers of Earth Science in China 3(1), 21-33. Pye, K., 2001. Long-term geomorphological changes and how they may affect the dune coasts of Europe. In: Houston, J.A., Edmondson, S.E., Rooney, P.J. (Eds.), Coastal Dune Management-Shared Experience of European Conservation Practice. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, pp.17-23. Sancho, F., Oliveira, F.S.B.F., Freire, P., 2012. Coastal dunes vulnerability indexes: a new proposal and application to Ria Formosa coast (Portugal). Coastal engineering Proceedings 1(33), 68. Sanderson, P.G., Eliot, I., 1999. Compartmentalisation of beach face sediments along the southwestern coast of Australia. Marine Geology 162, 145-164. Taylor, J.W., 1961. How to create ideas. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ. Thieler, E.R., Hammar-Klose, E.S., 1999. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Open-File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, 99-593. Thieler, E.R., Hammar-Klose, E.S., 2000a. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Pacific Coast. Open-File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, 00-178. Thieler, E.R., Hammar-Klose, E.S., 2000b. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast. Open-File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, 00-179. Valles, S.M., Fernandez, J.B.G., Dellafiore, C.M., 2011. Dune vulnerability in relation to tourismpressure in Central Gulf of Cadiz (S W Spain), a case study. Journal of Coastal Research 27(2), 243-251. Williams, A.T., Alveirinho Dias, J., Garcia Novo, F., Garcia Mora, M.R., Curr, R., Pereira, A., 2001. Integrated coastal dune management: Checklists. Continental Shelf Research 21, 1937-1960. Williams, A.T., Bennett, R., 1996. Dune vulnerability and management in England. In: Taussik, J., Mitchell, J. (Eds.), Coastal Zone Management. Samara Publishing Limited, Cardigan, pp. 377-384. Williams, A.T., Davies, P., Alveirinho-Dias, J.M., Pereira, A.R., Garc!a-Mora, M.R., Tejada, M., 1994. A re-evaluation of dune vulnerability checklist parameters. Gaia 8, 179-182. Williams, A.T., Davies, P., Curr, R., Koh, A., Bodere, J.C., Hallegouet, B., Meur, C., Yoni, C., 1993. A checklist assessment of dune vulnerability and protection in Devon and Cornwall, UK. In: Magoon, O.T. (Ed.), Coastal Zone93. American Society of Civil Engineering, New York, pp. 3394-3408. Williams, A.T., Duck, R.W., Phillips, M.R., 2011. Coastal dune vulnerability among selected Scottish systems. Journal of Coastal Research 64, 12631267. Williams, A.T., Randerson, P., Sothern, E., 1997. Trampling and vegetation response on sand dunes in South Wales, U.K. In: Garca Novo, F., Crawford, R.M.M., DazBarradas, M.C. (Eds.), The Ecology and Conservation of European Dunes. Sevilla, Spain, pp. 287-300.

ORIGINAL

ARTICLE