Why coastal regulations fail

Bill Neal, Orrin Pilkey, Andrew Cooper, Norma Longo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This perspective examines case examples, primarily from the U. S. Carolinas and Alabama, that illustrate some of the flaws of four federal programs of the last 50 years (National Flood Insurance Program, U. S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Coastal Area Management Act, Stafford Disaster Relief Act), as well as general reasons for state and local regulation failures. The latter include: variances that undercut the regulatory intent by the tyranny of small decisions, emergency dispensations, and compensatory mitigation; allowances for ‘temporary’ shore-hardening structures that become permanent; establishing control lines that are not adjusted to shifting shorelines; over-simplifying (one-size-fits-all) and misapplying (importing inappropriate strategies) regulations; conflicting jurisdictional boundaries; and the political instability of regulatory laws. Political-legislative realm failures include: 1) generalized laws do not match the complexity of coasts; 2) legislators lack the foresight to provide funding for regulatory monitoring/enforcement/penalties; 3) legislative bodies lack continuity of visions or goals for the future (e.g., overturn or weaken prior regulatory legislation); and 4) politicians are subject to conflicts of interest (e.g., affluent coastal land owners; pro-development lobbies). The political-legislative disconnect from the reality of Nature, and failure to use longer-term projections of erosion rates, sediment supply, and effects of sea-level rise, are the most frequent culprits in regulatory failure. New starting points for sound regulatory coastal management are better-informed politicians with the will to enact laws based on science that reflect natural variability, and laws that are unflawed by variances or over simplification. Regulations need to have continuity, proper funding, and enforcement.
LanguageEnglish
Pages21-34
JournalOcean and Coastal Management
Volume156
Early online date23 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Apr 2018

Fingerprint

disaster relief
political instability
overturn
coastal zone management
erosion rate
hardening
shoreline
legislation
mitigation
coast
monitoring
resource
sediment
regulation
programme
enforcement
effect
allowance
land
legislative body

Keywords

  • Management
  • Regulations
  • Coastal zone
  • Alabama
  • North Carolina
  • Mining

Cite this

Neal, Bill ; Pilkey, Orrin ; Cooper, Andrew ; Longo, Norma. / Why coastal regulations fail. In: Ocean and Coastal Management. 2018 ; Vol. 156. pp. 21-34.
@article{705ad7441dc64a09980ed005145dac85,
title = "Why coastal regulations fail",
abstract = "This perspective examines case examples, primarily from the U. S. Carolinas and Alabama, that illustrate some of the flaws of four federal programs of the last 50 years (National Flood Insurance Program, U. S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Coastal Area Management Act, Stafford Disaster Relief Act), as well as general reasons for state and local regulation failures. The latter include: variances that undercut the regulatory intent by the tyranny of small decisions, emergency dispensations, and compensatory mitigation; allowances for ‘temporary’ shore-hardening structures that become permanent; establishing control lines that are not adjusted to shifting shorelines; over-simplifying (one-size-fits-all) and misapplying (importing inappropriate strategies) regulations; conflicting jurisdictional boundaries; and the political instability of regulatory laws. Political-legislative realm failures include: 1) generalized laws do not match the complexity of coasts; 2) legislators lack the foresight to provide funding for regulatory monitoring/enforcement/penalties; 3) legislative bodies lack continuity of visions or goals for the future (e.g., overturn or weaken prior regulatory legislation); and 4) politicians are subject to conflicts of interest (e.g., affluent coastal land owners; pro-development lobbies). The political-legislative disconnect from the reality of Nature, and failure to use longer-term projections of erosion rates, sediment supply, and effects of sea-level rise, are the most frequent culprits in regulatory failure. New starting points for sound regulatory coastal management are better-informed politicians with the will to enact laws based on science that reflect natural variability, and laws that are unflawed by variances or over simplification. Regulations need to have continuity, proper funding, and enforcement.",
keywords = "Management, Regulations, Coastal zone, Alabama, North Carolina, Mining",
author = "Bill Neal and Orrin Pilkey and Andrew Cooper and Norma Longo",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.003",
language = "English",
volume = "156",
pages = "21--34",
journal = "Ocean and Coastal Management",
issn = "0964-5691",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Why coastal regulations fail. / Neal, Bill; Pilkey, Orrin; Cooper, Andrew; Longo, Norma.

In: Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 156, 15.04.2018, p. 21-34.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why coastal regulations fail

AU - Neal, Bill

AU - Pilkey, Orrin

AU - Cooper, Andrew

AU - Longo, Norma

PY - 2018/4/15

Y1 - 2018/4/15

N2 - This perspective examines case examples, primarily from the U. S. Carolinas and Alabama, that illustrate some of the flaws of four federal programs of the last 50 years (National Flood Insurance Program, U. S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Coastal Area Management Act, Stafford Disaster Relief Act), as well as general reasons for state and local regulation failures. The latter include: variances that undercut the regulatory intent by the tyranny of small decisions, emergency dispensations, and compensatory mitigation; allowances for ‘temporary’ shore-hardening structures that become permanent; establishing control lines that are not adjusted to shifting shorelines; over-simplifying (one-size-fits-all) and misapplying (importing inappropriate strategies) regulations; conflicting jurisdictional boundaries; and the political instability of regulatory laws. Political-legislative realm failures include: 1) generalized laws do not match the complexity of coasts; 2) legislators lack the foresight to provide funding for regulatory monitoring/enforcement/penalties; 3) legislative bodies lack continuity of visions or goals for the future (e.g., overturn or weaken prior regulatory legislation); and 4) politicians are subject to conflicts of interest (e.g., affluent coastal land owners; pro-development lobbies). The political-legislative disconnect from the reality of Nature, and failure to use longer-term projections of erosion rates, sediment supply, and effects of sea-level rise, are the most frequent culprits in regulatory failure. New starting points for sound regulatory coastal management are better-informed politicians with the will to enact laws based on science that reflect natural variability, and laws that are unflawed by variances or over simplification. Regulations need to have continuity, proper funding, and enforcement.

AB - This perspective examines case examples, primarily from the U. S. Carolinas and Alabama, that illustrate some of the flaws of four federal programs of the last 50 years (National Flood Insurance Program, U. S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Coastal Area Management Act, Stafford Disaster Relief Act), as well as general reasons for state and local regulation failures. The latter include: variances that undercut the regulatory intent by the tyranny of small decisions, emergency dispensations, and compensatory mitigation; allowances for ‘temporary’ shore-hardening structures that become permanent; establishing control lines that are not adjusted to shifting shorelines; over-simplifying (one-size-fits-all) and misapplying (importing inappropriate strategies) regulations; conflicting jurisdictional boundaries; and the political instability of regulatory laws. Political-legislative realm failures include: 1) generalized laws do not match the complexity of coasts; 2) legislators lack the foresight to provide funding for regulatory monitoring/enforcement/penalties; 3) legislative bodies lack continuity of visions or goals for the future (e.g., overturn or weaken prior regulatory legislation); and 4) politicians are subject to conflicts of interest (e.g., affluent coastal land owners; pro-development lobbies). The political-legislative disconnect from the reality of Nature, and failure to use longer-term projections of erosion rates, sediment supply, and effects of sea-level rise, are the most frequent culprits in regulatory failure. New starting points for sound regulatory coastal management are better-informed politicians with the will to enact laws based on science that reflect natural variability, and laws that are unflawed by variances or over simplification. Regulations need to have continuity, proper funding, and enforcement.

KW - Management

KW - Regulations

KW - Coastal zone

KW - Alabama

KW - North Carolina

KW - Mining

U2 - 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.003

M3 - Article

VL - 156

SP - 21

EP - 34

JO - Ocean and Coastal Management

T2 - Ocean and Coastal Management

JF - Ocean and Coastal Management

SN - 0964-5691

ER -