Editing Coastal erosion (section)

==Control methods==
There are three common forms of coastal erosion control methods. These three include: soft-erosion controls, hard-erosion controls, and relocation.

===Hard-erosion controls===
[[File:Seawall (Phetchaburi Province).jpg|thumb|This image represents a typical seawall that is used for preventing and controlling coastal erosion.]]

Hard-erosion control methods provide a more permanent solution than soft-erosion control methods. [[Seawall]]s and [[groynes]] serve as semi-permanent infrastructure. These structures are not immune from normal wear-and-tear and will have to be refurbished or rebuilt. It is estimated the average life span of a seawall is 50–100 years and the average for a groyne is 30–40 years.<ref name="Dean">{{cite web|url=http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/957/OceanfrontSandbags-JDean.pdf?sequence=1|title=Oceanfront Sandbag Use in North Carolina: Management Review and Suggestions for Improvement|last=Dean|first=J.|date=22 April 2009 |publisher=Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University|access-date=11 October 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304083548/http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/957/OceanfrontSandbags-JDean.pdf?sequence=1|archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> Because of their relative permanence, it is assumed that these structures can be a final solution to erosion. Seawalls can also deprive public access to the beach and drastically alter the natural state of the beach. Groynes also drastically alter the natural state of the beach. Some claim that groynes could reduce the interval between beach nourishment projects though they are not seen as a solution to beach nourishment.<ref name="Knapp">{{cite web|url=http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5182/Knapp_Whitney_MP.pdf?sequence=1|title=Impacts of Terminal Groins on North Carolina's Coast|last=Knapp|first=Whitney|date=20 April 2012 |publisher=Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University|access-date=15 October 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140312224735/http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5182/Knapp_Whitney_MP.pdf?sequence=1|archive-date=12 March 2014}}</ref> Other criticisms of seawalls are that they can be expensive, difficult to maintain, and can sometimes cause further damage to the beach if built improperly.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Managing Coastal Erosion|publisher=National Academies Press|year=1989|isbn=9780309041430}}</ref> As we learn more about hard erosion controls it can be said for certain that these structural solutions cause more problems than they solve. They interfere with the natural water currents and prevent sand from shifting along coasts, along with the high costs to install and maintain them, their tendency to cause erosion in adjacent beaches and dunes, and the unintended diversion of stormwater and into other properties.<ref name="Coastal Erosion">{{cite web |title=Coastal Erosion |url=https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coastal-erosion#footnote1_mp5focg. |website=U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit |publisher=New England Federal Partners |access-date=29 November 2021}}</ref>

Natural forms of hard-erosion control include planting or maintaining native vegetation, such as [[mangrove]] forests and [[coral]] reefs.

===Soft-erosion controls===
[[File:Hurricane Sandy - sandbagged beach, Cape Hatteras.jpg|thumb|upright|Sandbagged beach at the site of [[Hurricane Sandy]].]]

Soft erosion strategies refer to temporary options of slowing the effects of erosion. These options, including [[sandbags|Sandbag]] and [[beach nourishment]], are not intended to be long-term solutions or permanent solutions.<ref name="Dean" /> Another method, beach scraping or beach bulldozing allows for the creation of an artificial dune in front of a building or as means of preserving a building foundation. However, there is a U.S. federal moratorium on beach bulldozing during turtle nesting season, 1 May – 15 November.<ref name="N.C. Division of Coastal Management">{{cite web|url=http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Hazards/protect.html|title=Coastal Hazards & Storm Information: Protecting Oceanfront Property from Erosion|publisher=North Carolina Division of Coastal Management|access-date=17 September 2013}}{{dead link|date=August 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> One of the most common methods of soft erosion control is beach nourishment projects. These projects involve dredging sand and moving it to the beaches as a means of reestablishing the sand lost due to erosion.<ref name="Dean" /> In some situations, beach nourishment is not a suitable measure to take for erosion control, such as in areas with sand sinks or frequent and large storms.<ref name=":0" />
[[Dynamic revetment]], which uses loose cobble to mimic the function of a natural [[storm beach]], may be a soft-erosion control alternative in high energy environments such as open coastlines.<ref name=":2">{{cite web |author1=Paul D. Komar |author2=Jonathan C. Allan |title="Design with Nature" Strategies for Shore Protection: The Construction of a Cobble Berm and Artificial Dune in an Oregon State Park |publisher=Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report  |date=2010 |url=https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5254/pdf/sir20105254_chap12.pdf}}</ref>

Over the years beach nourishment has become a very controversial shore protection measure: It has the potential to negatively impact several of the natural resources. Some large issues with these beach nourishment projects are that they must follow a wide range of complex laws and regulations, as well as the high expenses it takes to complete these projects. Just because sand is added to a beach does not mean it will stay there. Some communities will bring in large volumes of sand repeatedly only for it to be washed away with the next big storm. Despite these factors, beach nourishment is still used often in many communities. Lately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers emphasized the need to consider a whole new range of solutions to coastal erosion, not just structural solutions. Solutions that have potential include native vegetation, wetland protection and restoration, and relocation or removal of structures and debris.<ref name="Coastal Erosion"/>

===Living shorelines===
The solutions to coastal erosion that include vegetation are called "living shorelines". Living shorelines use plants and other natural elements. Living shorelines are found to be more resilient against storms, improve water quality, increase biodiversity, and provide fishery habitats. Marshes and oyster reefs are examples of vegetation that can be used for living shorelines; they act as natural barriers to waves. Fifteen feet of marsh can absorb fifty percent of the energy of incoming waves.<ref name="Coastal Erosion"/>

===Relocation===
{{further|Managed retreat}}
Relocation of infrastructure any housing farther away from the coast is also an option. The natural processes of both absolute and relative [[sea level rise]] and erosion are considered in rebuilding. Depending on factors such as the severity of the erosion, as well as the natural landscape of the property, relocation could simply mean moving inland by a short distance or relocation can be to completely remove improvements from an area.<ref name=":0" /> A coproduction<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tubridy |first1=Fiadh |title=Managed retreat and coastal climate change adaptation: The environmental justice implications and value of a coproduction approach |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837721006839 |journal=Land Use Policy |year=2022 |volume=114 |page=105960 |doi=10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105960 |bibcode=2022LUPol.11405960T |s2cid=245800633 |access-date=23 October 2022}}</ref> approach combined with managed retreat has been proposed as a solution that keeps in mind [[environmental justice]]. Typically, there has been low public support for "retreating".<ref name="McPherson">{{cite web|url=http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/958/mcpherson_MP_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1|title=Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise in North Carolina|last=McPherson|first=M.|date=22 April 2009 |publisher=Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University|access-date=25 October 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304083539/http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/958/mcpherson_MP_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1|archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> However, if a community does decide to relocate their buildings along the coast it is common that they will then turn the land into public open space or transfer it into land trusts in order to protect it. These relocation practices are very cost-efficient, can buffer storm surges, safeguard coastal homes and businesses, lower carbon and other pollutants, create nursery habitats for important fish species, restore open space and wildlife, and bring back the culture of these coastal communities.<ref name="Coastal Erosion"/>