Revista TOMO, São Cristóvão, v. 44, e22912, 2025

DOI:10.21669/tomo.v44.22912

Special Issue - Coastal Squeeze: Beaches under Socio-Economic

and Ecological Pressure

E-ISSN:2318-9010 / ISSN:1517-4549

Special Issue

Planning for Beach Resilience: A Framework for Understanding

Beach Appropriation and the Coastal Squeeze

Charles Lester¹; Kiki Patsch²; José Castro-Sotomayor³; Jenifer Dugan⁴

Summer Gray⁵; Philip King⁶; Ella McDougall⁷; Kriss K. Neuman⁸

Dan Reineman⁹; Sarah Jenkins¹⁰; Lilia Mourier¹¹; Miranda Scalzo¹²

Abstract

California is expected to face significant beach loss due to coastal squeeze by 2100 without effective adap-

tation. Recognizing the importance of beaches to California’s social, cultural, economic, and environmen-

tal fabric, the state is developing the California Beach Resiliency Plan (CBRP). The CBRP will assess beach

vulnerability and guide local adaptation through an interdisciplinary framework that addresses geophy-

sical processes, access and recreation, economic and ecological values, cultural significance, development

pressures, justice, and governance. This framing of beaches as complex socio-environmental systems may

be useful for supporting efforts to sustain beaches as vital public spaces in the face of sea level rise and in-

creasing coastal constraints.

Keywords: Beach Access; Coastal Squeeze; California Coast; Beach Resilience; Socio-Ecological Systems;

Coastal Governance; Climate Adaptation.

1

University of California, Santa Barbara. Marine Science Institute. Santa Barbara. California. USA. E-mail: charleslester@

ucsb.edu Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-0026. CrediT: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology,

Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

California State University, Channel Islands. Camarillo. California. USA. E:mail: kiki.patsch@csuci.edu Orcid:https://orcid.

2

org/0000-0002-3238-8869 CrediT: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

California State University Channel Islands, Department of Communication Studies, Camarillo, California, United States. E-mail:

3

jose.castro-sotomayor@csuci.edu Or cid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8436-4255. CRediT: Writing – review and editing.

Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States. E-mail: j_dugan@li -

4

fesci.ucsb.edu Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9653-997X. CRediT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

University of California, Santa Barbara, Environmental Studies, Santa Barbara, California, United States. E-mail: sgray@

5

es.ucsb.edu Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1661-179X CRediT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University, Ceto Consulting, Davis, California, United States. E-mail: pking@ceto -

6

consulting.co CRediT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

California Ocean Protection Council, State of California, Sacramento, California, United States. E-mail: ella.mcdougall@

7

resources.ca.gov CRediT: Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

Point Blue Conservation Science, Pacific Coast and Central Valley Group, Petaluma, California, United States. E-mail: kneu -

8

man@pointblue.org CRediT: Writing – review and editing

California State University Channel Islands, Environmental Science and Resource Management, Camarillo, California, Uni-

9

ted States. E-mail: daniel.reineman@csuci.edu Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3019-2499. CRediT: Writing – original

draft, Writing – review and editing

Ceto Consulting, Newbury Park, CA, California, United States. E-mail: sjenkins@cetoconsulting.co CRediT: Methodology;

10

Writing

11

University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, Santa Barbara, California,

United States. E-mail: liliamourier@bren.ucsb.edu Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9587-7105. CRediT: Project admi-

nistration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, Santa Barbara, California,

12

United States. E-mail: mscalzo@bren.ucsb.edu Orcid: CRediT: Validation, Writing – review and editing

1

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

Introduction

Beaches are valued worldwide as places of cultural expression, recreation, commerce, ecological

function, storm buffering, beauty, and sustenance. The private appropriation of beaches is also wi-

despread, though its forms and resulting conflicts vary (Low, 2025). Understanding this variation

is key for those seeking to preserve beaches as vital public spaces. However, global sea level rise

(SLR) and the coastal squeeze – the eventual disappearance of beaches trapped between rising

seas and fixed human developments, like seawalls and urban infrastructure – may render such

understanding and the goal of preserving beaches moot.

To address beach privatization and the coastal squeeze, it is important to understand the physical

and social dynamics of beach change. This article focuses on California, where public beach access

is highly valued. It outlines the California Beach Resiliency Plan (CBRP), a new interdisciplinary

initiative for helping communities address SLR, beach loss, and the often competing social, ecolo-

gical, and governing factors that determine the resilience of beaches. The CBRP was initiated and

funded by the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to support the agency’s mission to “pro-

tect California’s coast and ocean by advancing innovative, science-based policy and management,

making strategic investments, and catalyzing action through partnerships and collaboration” (Ca-

lifornia Ocean Protection Council, 2025). The CBRP is being developed by a multidisciplinary re-

search team led by the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center at the Marine Science Institute, University

of California, Santa Barbara.

California has a long history of proactive beach management and protection of public shoreline

access and recreation. But climate change and global sea level rise now jeopardize both this legacy

and the long-term resilience of California’s beaches. California’s coast is also under stress from an

increasingly complicated political landscape, one with a multitude of overlapping regulatory ju-

risdictions and competing development interests. In response to increasing pressures to balance

housing needs, climate adaptation, and economic development, California is seeing a growing call

for regulatory streamlining and legislative reforms to facilitate housing solutions in coastal areas.

At the same time, this debate has reinvigorated longstanding private property rights interests that

advocate for adaptation solutions that don’t require strict regulation or relocation of residential

development out of coastal hazard zones (such as managed retreat) (Karlamangla, 2025; Bittle,

2023). Nonetheless, recent polling suggests that California remains largely committed to its le-

gacy of beach protection, with about nine in ten adults saying that “the condition of oceans and

beaches is very important or somewhat important to California’s future economy and quality of

life” (Public Policy Institute of California, 2025). In this context of diverse opinions about coastal

management, the CBRP will produce a statewide framework and decision support tools to guide

beach adaptation at the local community level.

While the CBRP may support California’s statewide commitment to beach resiliency through stra-

tegic and interdisciplinary planning, long-term action will depend on funding and collaboration

for its implementation. Local communities will need the capacity to navigate trade-offs among

often competing uses and values for the beach. In anticipation of such implementation, this article

examines the major dimensions of the CBRP framework in relation to the challenge of climate

change, beach resiliency, and public beach access.

It suggests that viewing beaches as complex socio-ecological systems (as proposed in the early de-

velopment of the CBRP) may be a useful shared framework for understanding how private beach

2

Planning for Beach Resilience

appropriation and resilience are linked, the trade-offs between conflicting beach values and func-

tions, and how public beaches may be better sustained in a changing climate. The article authors

are members of the CBRP research team, and one is an employee of the funding agency (OPC).

However, the conclusions herein are not intended to (nor do they) represent official California

policy concerning public beach access and management.

The California Case: from expanding neach access protection to the Coastal Squeeze

California’s coast has been inhabited by humans for at least 14,000 years, and evidence suggests signi-

ficant connections to and use of coastal and marine resources by people. The population of California is

estimated to have been around 310,000 at the time of European contact (16^th-18^thcenturies), with tragic

and dramatic reductions to perhaps 20,000 by 1900 as colonial populations steadily expanded (from

Spain, Mexico, the U.S., and other places). Post-contact coastal population growth was driven prima-

rily by maritime commerce, logging, the California gold rush, and expanding rail transport supporting

economic growth. By the late 19^thand early 20^thcentury, a coastal leisure economy had also started to

contribute to increasing tourism and development from San Diego to San Francisco (ICF et al., 2013).

California experienced accelerating population growth in the early 20^thcentury, with increasing

conflict between private development and public interests regarding the use and enjoyment of the

shoreline. Though California’s 1879 Constitution provided for access to tidelands for any public

purpose, expanding governmental grants and sales of tidal areas to private interests for develo-

pment prompted the California legislature to prohibit such transfers in 1909. Subsequently, the

protection of the various public interests in beaches became a key component of a statewide mo-

vement to expand public park holdings.

A state bond act to acquire new state parklands overwhelmingly passed in 1927, and in 1929, Fre-

drick Law Olmsted completed a survey of potential park acquisitions for the state. Concerning the

shoreline and beaches, Olmsted was clear-eyed that “the values at stake along a thousand miles of

almost unwatched tideland boundary, with many thousands of aggressive private neighbors ready

to take an ell where they can get an inch, are too vast to be left longer without vigorous safeguar-

ding” (Olmsted, 1929, p. 23). Olmsted’s report focused on the need for acquisition of coastal lands

and proactive regulation of private development along the shoreline to avoid the “short-sited and

publicly injurious” exploitation of the coast.

On the heels of Olmsted’s report, a joint legislative committee recognized that “[t]he future pros-

perity of the State and the happiness of its citizens in a large measure depends upon the manner

in which the waterfront from Oregon to Mexico is developed by both governmental and private

agencies (California Legislature, 1931). The committee also recognized that while the state held

the land below the mean high tide in trust for the public, most coastal land above the mean high

tide line was private. It specifically embraced Olmsted’s call for increased public acquisition of co-

astal uplands for recreational uses as well as acquisition of land between existing public roads and

the shoreline to increase public access to tidelands. Perhaps in response to Olmsted’s call for more

proactive state intervention, the committee observed how increasing public coastal lands might

also “protect […] the private owners of upland beach areas from trespass and from increasingly

insistent demands for legislation of a radical character” (Id., p. 365).

California increased its coastal state park holdings significantly in the ensuing decades, but rapid

growth also continued, particularly in the post-WWII period. By the 1960s, unregulated develop-

3

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

ment was further degrading the coast, steadily reducing public shoreline access, just as Olmsted

had foreseen. In the San Francisco Bay Area, uncontrolled filling of the Bay led to the creation of

the first state coastal management agency – the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development

Commission (BCDC) – in 1965.

Among other things, BCDC was tasked with protecting the Bay’s wetlands and providing public

access along the shoreline. BCDC was also inspirational for a statewide political movement to pro-

tect the outer coast. Voters passed the 1972 Coastal Initiative, declaring that “the California coastal

zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people.” Four years later, the

legislature enacted the California Coastal Act to implement this vision. The legislature also created

a state Coastal Conservancy to continue coastal land acquisition and provide funding for public ac-

cess and environmental restoration projects. Meanwhile, the California Department of Parks and

Recreation continued to expand the state park system, including along the coast (Lester, 2013).

The Coastal Act created the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to regulate development and

protect public shoreline access and other coastal resources. The law affirmed the original 1879

constitutional right-of-way to the navigable waters when required for a public purpose (California

Constitution, Article X, § 4) and established a mandate that “maximum access . . . be provided for

all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of

private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse” (California Public Resources

Code (PRC), §30210). The Act also required that new development enhance public access and

avoid interfering with existing access (California Public Resources Code (PRC), §§ 30211-30212).

To implement these (and other) statewide coastal protection mandates, the Coastal Act required

local governments to create land use plans and zoning ordinances (Local Coastal Programs or

LCPs), to be approved by the Coastal Commission. Once an LCP was approved, local governments

could then assume the Commission’s regulatory authority over new development above the mean

high tide, with some appellate oversight by the Commission. The Commission retained its autho-

rity over development on state tidelands. The Coastal Act thus finally established the comprehen-

sive planning and regulatory program for coastal management that Olmsted and others had called

for fifty years earlier.

The Coastal Act was born out of the public concern for the increasing degradation of the California

coast. However, it was also part of the larger modern environmental movement that saw the crea-

tion of many environmental planning and regulation programs, including the Clean Air and Water

Acts, protection of sensitive species and wildlife, the regulation of toxic chemicals and dumpsites,

and new environmental assessment requirements at the state and national level. The birth of the

California coastal program also coincided with the creation and became a part of a national coastal

zone management program, managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). By the end of the 1970s, comprehensive planning in the coastal zone, including protec-

ting and providing for public shoreline and beach access, was firmly ensconced in California as

part of a larger coastal and environmental protection ethic (Id.).

The protection of public beach access is one of the great successes of the California coastal pro-

gram. Since 1977, the CCC has secured over 1,600 public access beach dedications to mitigate

development impacts (Lester, 2022). Most of these are “lateral” areas between new or redevelo-

ped private beach homes and the mean high tideline, though nearly 200 are “vertical” accessways

from the first inland public road to the shoreline (Figure 1). The CCC has also opened many beach

areas that might otherwise be private, blocked by development, or behind locked gates, including

4

Planning for Beach Resilience

stretches of the Malibu coast, luxury hotels, and exclusive resort areas such as the Pebble Beach

Golf Course in Monterey (Figure 2).

Not without controversy, beach access litigation is common. In 1987, a CCC decision requiring a

private home to dedicate beach access reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was overturned

in a 5-4 decision that concluded, based on the case facts, that the Commission had an insufficient

basis for requiring public access (Nollan, 1987). The case is significant in U.S. property law and

may have had a chilling effect on subsequent CCC actions to secure access dedications. Still, the

agency has continued to expand public beach access through its planning and regulatory program

(Id.). These efforts include enforcement of Coastal Act public access requirements, particularly

in urban areas where tension between residents and beach visitors is common. In 2020, the CCC

fined thirty-three Newport Beach homeowners $1.7 million for public beach encroachments (Cal-

ifornia Coastal Commission, 2020). That same year, a court upheld another CCC order against a

homeowner to remove an illegal seawall and pay a $1-million fine (11 Lagunita, 2020).

California’s success in protecting and expanding public beach access is widely recognized, yet glo-

bal sea level rise threatens to undue this accomplishment. Sea levels could rise between 1.6 and

3.1 feet by 2100 (California Ocean Protection Council, 2024), perhaps causing the loss of 24% to

75% of southern California sandy beaches by the end of the century. This is largely due to “coastal

squeeze” – the gradual inundation and erosion of beaches that are increasingly backed by harde-

ned, non-erodible shorelines (Vitousek et al., 2017). As beaches disappear, so will their ecosystem

services, including habitat, storm buffering, and public access. One study estimates that 100 ac-

cess sites could be lost for every foot of SLR (Patsch and Reineman, 2024). The decreasing supply

of public beach access also may be exacerbated by higher demand as people in increasingly hot-

ter inland areas seek relief in the relatively cooler coastal zone (California Coastal Commission,

2024). Meanwhile, California’s total population is expected to increase by about 5% or nearly two

million people by 2070 (California Department of Finance, 2025).

Figure 1. Example of Beach Access Dedications in Malibu, California.

Source: Adapted from California Coastal Commission, n.d.)

5

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

Figure 2. Public Beach Access Dedication at the Pebble Beach Golf Course.

Source: California Coastal Commission, 2016.

The coastal squeeze will also intensify fundamental legal conflict between public and private pro-

perty interests. As discussed, California has recognized since its inception that tidelands carry

inherent public interests, a principle dating back to Justinian’s 533 proclamation that the seasho-

re is “common to all” by virtue of natural law (Moyle, 1913). Under the U.S. and California Public

Trust Doctrines, only specific public uses, such as commerce, fishing, recreation, and protection of

natural resources, are permitted on tidelands. Private residential uses generally are not. Califor-

nia’s tidelands (between the mean low and high-water lines) are held in trust for the people for

“statewide public purposes” (Lester, 2021). The California State Lands Commission – another im-

portant state coastal management agency in California – manages these lands and has authority to

remove trespassers or issue leases to use tidelands, provided the use does not cause “substantial

impairment” to the public interest (Illinois Central, 1892).

Depending on the slope of a beach, the boundary between public tidelands and private uplands

will move as much as 150 feet inland with three feet of SLR – a distinct possibility in the next 50-

75 years (Figure 3). This could result in hundreds of private encroachments on public tidelands,

prompting disputes over trespass and raising complex property law questions for the State Lands

Commission and the courts. The Coastal Commission and local governments may also face chal-

lenges implementing the Coastal Act, as the law specifically recognizes the Constitutional require-

ment to protect public access to tidelands. How these disputes are resolved will shape the future

balance between public and private interests along many miles of shoreline (Lester, 2021).

6

Planning for Beach Resilience

Figure 3. Shoreline Change with 3.3 feet (1 meter) of SLR in Del Mar, CA.

Source: Lester, 2021.

Sea Level Rise And The California Beach Resiliency Plan

The state of California and its coastal management agencies have long recognized the significant

threat of climate change and global sea level rise to both shoreline development and important co-

astal resources, particularly beach access and recreation. Over the last two decades, gubernatorial

executive orders have directed California’s agencies to plan for sea level rise. Multiple statewide

bond measures have directed billions of dollars toward climate change response. Since 2013, the

CCC has supported LCP updates to address sea level rise through a grant program to local gover-

nments and with comprehensive guidance (2015). More than two-thirds of the 76 communities

on the outer coast have completed sea level rise vulnerability assessments, and about a third have

completed adaptation plans – many of which address the projected loss of beach resources, in-

cluding public access (Lester et al., 2023). Most recently, state law was amended to require local

governments to prepare sea level rise adaptation plans, and significant funding was given to OPC

to support this planning.

OPC has also identified a central concern for beaches in its Strategic Plan, especially the loss of

beach habitat due to sea level rise (California Ocean Protection Council, 2020). Accordingly, in De-

cember 2023, the OPC approved funding for the completion of the California Beach Resiliency Plan

(CBRP) to address future beach loss by assessing the values and functions of California’s beaches,

evaluating their vulnerability to climate change, and providing a framework to help local jurisdic-

tions prioritize beach adaptation strategies.

The CBRP will also offer recommendations to address beach resiliency statewide (California Oce-

an Protection Council, 2023). The plan will include modeling linking beach behavior with cliff

retreat to better project beach change and support evaluation of beach values vulnerable to SLR,

including ecology, risk mitigation, public access, cultural and tribal significance, economics, and

7

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

social equity. The goal is to help communities identify key strategies to prioritize specific beaches

and adaptation approaches to achieve their resilience goals. The following sections briefly describe

the core dimensions of the CBRP currently being developed by a multidisciplinary research team.

Geophysical Drivers of Beaches and Resiliency

Beaches are shaped by sediment transport, wave energy, tides, and sea level. Understanding these

processes is essential to predicting how beaches will respond to human activities and environ-

mental change, like SLR. Coastal watersheds collect and channel surface water – and sediment

– toward common outlets like rivers or oceans. California’s rivers historically supplied the sand

that nourished beaches. But dams, urbanization, and channel modifications have disrupted these

flows, leaving many beaches sand-starved. Coastal cliffs, especially those made of soft material,

provide supplemental sand to the beaches, if not armored with a seawall.

Sandsheds – also called littoral cells or beach compartments – are semi-enclosed zones where

sediment sources (rivers, cliff and dune erosion, onshore transport) and sinks (losses to submari-

ne canyons offshore and dune formation) interact (Figure 4). Headlands and submarine canyons

often define their upcoast and downcoast boundaries. Longshore drift, driven by wave angles

and nearshore currents, moves sand along the California coast, primarily southward in winter

and northward in summer, reshaping beaches seasonally. Disruptions of sediment supplies to a

sandshed, like a river dam, sand mining, or cliff armoring, may increase beach erosion. Regional

sediment management strategies aim to restore sand supply by removing barriers or bringing

sediment to the shoreline.

Figure 4. The Sand Shed.

Source: Explore Beaches, 2025. Available on: https://explorebeaches.msi.ucsb.edu/sandy-beach-life/sand-movement.

Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

SLR drives long-term beach change through shoreline migration or transgression. The ability of a

beach to persist under rising seas depends largely on accommodation space, or the landward area

available for natural retreat and sediment deposition. Where bluffs, seawalls, or urban infrastruc-

ture block this space, coastal squeeze causes beaches to narrow or disappear (Figure 5). Beaches

with ample sediment and accommodation space, such as those backed by dune fields, may main-

8

Planning for Beach Resilience

tain their width and buffering functions. California’s urban beaches are facing severe constraints,

and some say sustained investment in large-scale beach nourishment increasingly may be needed

to offset the coastal squeeze.

Figure 5. Sea Level Rise, Coastal Squeeze, and Beach Loss.

Source: California Coastal Commission, 2018. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/climate/slr/vulnerability/residen -

tial/RevisedDraftResidentialAdaptationGuidance.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

2. Ecology of Beaches

Sandy beach ecosystems are part of a larger system that connects the surf zone, beach, and ba-

ckshore. To a casual visitor, California’s beaches may appear relatively empty of life. No plant life

can persist on the shifting sand of open beaches, and most of the characteristic intertidal animals

are small, highly mobile, and difficult to see. Yet, beaches support diverse communities of resident

and transient species, including those that forage, nest, or overwinter along the coast.

Beach ecosystems perform vital functions. They absorb wave energy, filter seawater, and recy-

cle nutrients. Fueled by cool, phytoplankton-rich upwelled waters and connected to productive

kelp forests, California’s beaches support some of the most diverse intertidal invertebrate beach

communities ever documented. These invertebrates, in turn, support fish like surfperch and corbi-

na, which are important for human shore fishing and wintering shorebirds. Beaches also provide

critical habitat for wildlife, such as pinnipeds, declining and endangered bird species, and beach-

-nesting fish, like California grunion and surf smelt.

The upper shore zones of the beach are expected to suffer the greatest ecological impacts from

the coastal squeeze (Barnard et al., 2021; Jaramillo et al., 2021). These dynamic zones offer refuge

for mobile animals during storms and provide nesting areas for species like the western snowy

plover and grunion. At their landward edge, these upper zones can also support pioneering plants

9

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

that trap sand and help build dunes, enhancing resilience to SLR. However, these also are often

the most intensively modified by infrastructure, residential development, beach grooming, and

recreational activity.

Upper zones of armored beaches tend to be narrow and truncated (Figure 6) but are typically wide

yet ecologically degraded on groomed beaches (Dugan et al., 2008; Dugan and Hubbard, 2010).

Armoring and grooming both reduce ecosystem function and biodiversity (Dugan and Hubbard,

2010; Jaramillo et al., 2021; Schooler et al., 2019). Implementing management practices that sha-

pe the extent and condition of upper beach zones, such as dune restoration (Figure 7, Johnston et

al., 2023; Emery et al., 2024) and managed retreat, can provide opportunities to increase beach

ecosystem condition and resilience to SLR.

Figure 6. Loss of the upper beach zone at low tide on an armored beach.

Source: (Dugan et al., 2018 ; photo credit: E. Jaramillo, 2009).

Figure 7. Dune restoration on a groomed urban beach.

Source: (Johnston et al., 2023, Photo credit K. Emery, 2022).

10

Planning for Beach Resilience

3. Beach Access and Recreation

Beaches are essential public spaces offering diverse access and recreational experiences. Access

is more than physical entry points; it includes informal paths, adjacent neighborhood routes, and

transportation systems for visitors’ movement. Meaningful access ensures that people with varied

backgrounds, abilities, and interests can reach and enjoy the beach. An access experience may de-

pend on amenities, safety, water quality, and crowding. Understanding beach access involves key

questions such as:

•

Are there well-maintained paths, boardwalks, and infrastructure, including for those with mo-

bility challenges?

•

Is access affordable, with free or low-cost parking, lodging, and transit options?

Are signs, amenities, and programming culturally and linguistically inclusive?

Are there adequate facilities such as restrooms, picnic areas, and lifeguards?

Do available recreational opportunities support diverse interests?

Balancing public access with beach quality raises complex questions, especially in a state that

mandates “maximum access.” Should all beaches be maximized for visitation? How would that

affect user experience or ecological function? In some cases, preserving more remote or undeve-

loped beaches may be appropriate.

California’s coast offers a diversity of access opportunities that serve different geographic areas

and patterns of visitation. Most beachgoers are residents, with people frequenting beaches closer

to them (Christensen and King, 2017). Nonetheless, some may travel farther based on parking

availability, facilities, or specific coastal conditions they seek (Patsch and Reineman, 2024). Some

beaches, such as Venice or La Jolla, may attract national and international visitors. Understanding

beach visitation patterns helps identify access disparities, especially for inland or lower-income

communities facing higher travel costs and other barriers (Reineman et al., 2016). Access-shed

analyses utilize tools, including geospatial models and cell-phone mobility data, to map visitation

patterns and identify communities that may depend on specific beaches (Reineman and Patsch,

in review). This information can support the provision of more equitable access by showing who

benefits or may be excluded from existing access opportunities.

4 Economics

Beaches are vital public assets that generate significant economic value through tourism, recre-

ation, and local commerce. Economists assess both market and “non-market” beach value – the

worth people assign to goods and services not directly priced. Studies suggest that, adjusted for

inflation, the non-market value of an average beach day in California in 2025 is $62, summed to

billions annually across the state, including $2 billion in San Diego County alone (Pendleton and

Kildow, 2006). Beaches also have “existence value” – the non-market valuation of beaches by peo-

ple, even if they never visit them.

Visitors’ spending varies by beach location, amenities, and lodging types. Urban beaches typically

generate more spending per visitor because they are near restaurants, shopping, and entertain-

11

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

ment. Overnight visitors, particularly those staying in hotels or short-term rentals, contribute

substantially more to local economies than day-trippers. In contrast, campers or those staying

with friends or family spend less, though lower-cost options improve access equity. The specific

types of beach recreation and amenities, from sunbathing to surfing, hiking, volleyball, camping,

and bonfires, also influence the economic value of certain beaches.

Lodging near beaches generates a crucial part of the revenue for local governments through Tran-

sient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), typically ranging from 10 to 15%. Urban beaches with more hotels

or rentals often generate several times more TOT revenue than rural beaches with limited ac-

commodations. TOT funds support public safety, infrastructure, and beach management. Visitors’

spending also generates sales tax revenue through purchases at restaurants, retail shops, and re-

creational businesses. While the state collects a base sales tax of 6%, local jurisdictions often add

between 1.25% and 3.25%, sometimes for specific projects such as transportation.

Beach spending varies significantly depending on the socioeconomics of beach visitors as well as

the availability of restaurants, hotels, and other places where they typically spend money. Wealthy

communities such as Manhattan Beach or Santa Barbara in southern California receive signifi-

cantly higher spending per visitor than do many less urban beaches or beaches adjacent to less

advantaged communities. This disparity in revenue can create a “have and have not” impact on

local communities, raising the question of whether State and Federal authorities should actively

address these disparities by subsidizing beaches that serve disadvantaged communities. On the

cost side of community finances, SLR and beach erosion pose growing financial risks. One study

projected hundreds of millions in lost tourism and tax revenue due to 4.6 feet of SLR by 2100,

including:

•

Ocean Beach (San Francisco): $82 million

Venice Beach (Los Angeles): $439.6 million.

Zuma & Broad Beach (Malibu): $498.7 million.

Carpinteria City and State Beach (Santa Barbara): $164.7 million.

Torrey Pines City and State Beach (San Diego): $99 million (King et al., 2011).

Sustaining the economic benefits of California’s beaches will require proactive investment. Co-

astal cities must evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of adaptation strategies. Comparing

options such as nourishment, living shorelines, hard armoring, or managed retreat can help de-

cision-makers develop fiscally responsible and environmentally sound plans. Land use decisions,

such as building a new hotel or retiring oceanfront development, may also influence the balance

between beach revenue generation and preservation of coastal character and access.

5 Tribal Communities

California’s beaches are ecological and recreational spaces, but they also belong to the cultural

landscapes of Indigenous peoples. For millennia, coastal tribes such as the Chumash, Yurok, Amah

Mutsun, Coast Miwok, and Ohlone have relied on beach and nearshore ecosystems for ceremony,

subsistence, trade, and social life. Beaches supply them with fish, shellfish, seaweed, and medici-

nal plants. They were connected to inland villages through seasonal migration, and coastal tribes

12

Planning for Beach Resilience

managed shoreline zones through systems of tenure and sustainable harvesting practices (Ligh-

tfoot and Parrish, 2009).

Shoreline adaptation efforts in California are increasingly recognizing tribal relationships to the

shoreline (Lester et al., 2024). While tribal ownership of coastal lands remains limited due to

historical dispossession, several tribes, such as the Yurok and Elk Valley Rancheria, are actively

engaged in vulnerability assessments and climate adaptation planning. The designation of the

Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary in 2024 exemplifies a co-management approach

to institutionalize tribal leadership in ocean and shoreline governance. These actions reflect an

important evolution in California’s adaptation planning framework: one that seeks to incorporate

Tribal values, ecological knowledge, and sovereignty into future-oriented strategies.

Beach resilience is often defined by its geomorphic stability, ecological function, and capacity for

hazard mitigation. However, resilience should also include the ability of coastal places to support

cultural survival, spiritual renewal, and intergenerational knowledge. This broader understan-

ding of resilience, grounded in social relations and reciprocity, enriches prevailing adaptation fra-

meworks by emphasizing relationships with place rather than just physical assets. This unders-

tanding may be deepened through such questions as:

•

How do tribal communities value and use sandy beaches today, and how are these relationships

changing in response to climate change and SLR?

What does “beach resilience” mean from a Tribal perspective, and how might these views in-

form adaptation strategies?

How can co-management and “land back” initiatives be incorporated into adaptation strate-

gies?

Where are tribal perspectives currently absent in beach planning, management, or climate

adaptation programs?

How can traditional ecological knowledge and Western science engage in fruitful and recipro-

cal dialogue?

These questions point toward a more inclusive and relational approach to beach resilience, which

acknowledges historical exclusion, supports tribal sovereignty, and centers long-standing cultural

practices in the face of accelerating coastal change.

6 Environmental Justice

Beaches are spaces where power, access, ownership, and ecological vulnerability intersect. Power

is exercised both structurally, as elites reshape coastal spaces and consolidate control (Bruno and

Salle, 2017; 2018), and relationally, through social networks that influence policy and planning

decisions (Clarke, Tually, and Scott, 2016). These dynamics play out through development, tou-

rism, and industrial expansion, which have intensified pressures on coastal environments, con-

tributing to habitat destruction, erosion, and pollution while also deepening racial and economic

inequalities.

Scholars have called for a closer, deeper examination of coastal planning, particularly how the

racialized history of coastal development informs present and future adaptation strategies (Har-

13

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

dy et al., 2017; Jefferson, 2020; Kahrl, 2012). Recent efforts in California have advanced equity in

coastal governance. In 2019, the California Coastal Commission adopted environmental justice

principles into policy, affirming the coast as a public good rather than a privilege of the wealthy

(California Coastal Commission, 2019).

Environmental justice (EJ) encompasses distributive, procedural, and recognition forms of justice.

Distributive justice concerns the unequal distribution of environmental harms and benefits, in-

cluding unequal access to coastal resources themselves. Marginalized communities often dispro-

portionately bear the burdens of pollution, coastal erosion, flooding, gentrification, and climate

risks. On the other hand, wealthier communities may enjoy more access to coastal resources and

protections from harm.

Studies of Miami (Montgomery et al., 2015) and South Korea (Kim, Lyu, and Song, 2019) show

how inequities in beach access reflect broader environmental justice concerns, situating Cali-

fornia’s challenges within a wider global context of distributive exclusion. Procedural justice

asks who has a voice in shaping shoreline adaptation, whose knowledge informs coastal deci-

sion-making, and whether it is fair. It refers to “how regulatory and participatory processes that

contribute to EJ outcomes are structured to include or exclude particular concerns, amplify or

silence certain voices, and create or deny opportunities for participation” (Johnson et al., 2022,

p. 66). At the same time, EJ must also grapple with the multispecies dimensions of coastal vul-

nerability and account for those who cannot speak for themselves. Scholars recognize that co-

astal disruption affects more-than-human communities with whom we inhabit and shape these

environments (Gesing, 2021).

Recognition justice insists on “the necessity of centering the cultures, knowledges, and values of

communities affected by environmental decisions[; it] demands respect for and adherence to af-

fected communities’ values, traditions, and epistemologies” (Johnson et al., 2022, pp. 65, 70). This

necessitates attention to situated ecocultural identities and the role of positionality in knowledge

production (Castro-Sotomayor and Minoia, 2024; Milstein and Castro-Sotomayor, 2020).

Coastal conflicts are not only political and distributive, but also intrinsically moral: disputes often

turn on competing visions of what a beach is and should be, whether as a space of leisure, com-

merce, cultural ritual, or ecological care. These moral contestations illustrate how exclusion can

persist even in the absence of overt discrimination. For example, multiple intersecting obstacles

continue to shape meaningful beach access. These include limited infrastructure and amenities for

low-income and disabled communities, such as (according to Fingal (2019)):

•

digital reservation systems that presume access to technology, digital literacy, and English-lan-

guage fluency;

•

cultural representations that perpetuate a coastal aesthetics of exclusion and privilege.

As beach loss intensifies, it threatens to exacerbate distributive, procedural, and recognitional

inequalities. Too often, low-income communities and communities of color are excluded from

coastal decision-making, even as they face the highest risks from SLR. To address procedural in-

justices, we must question whether official and institutionalized decision-making models truly

foster meaningful participation. How do these models shape coastal policy in California? Do

they reinforce existing power imbalances or allow agency and influence to emerge? Research

suggests that coastal policy, as “a cultural artifact” demands building models of participation

in coastal policy that value the knowledge and experiences of those who have the most to lose

14

Planning for Beach Resilience

in decision-making (Foxwell-Norton, 2017, p. 5). Then, how can we design participatory fra-

meworks that build community and institutional capacity while centering the knowledge and

experiences of those most at risk, including both marginalized human communities and more-

-than-human life?

By analyzing the social decision-making infrastructure in place, an EJ approach seeks to build

governmental and community capacity for diversifying representation, fostering engagement, ex-

panding agency, and improving outreach. This entails recognizing “that vulnerability may be more

complex than the mapping of economically-disadvantaged areas defined by census data” (Lester

et al., 2023, p. 98). The emphasis on procedural justice, community building, and grounded, pla-

ce-based resiliency planning allows us to go beyond mapping social vulnerability withGeographic

Informations Systems (GIS)and demographic information, to encompassing impacts on distribu-

tive and recognition justice.

7 Built Environment, Governance, and Adaptive Capacity

Despite the well-documented role of coastal squeeze in reducing the adaptive capacity of beaches,

coastal armoring continues to expand along urbanized stretches of the California coast. Ensuring

beach resiliency will require strategies that preserve natural processes and increase adaptive ca-

pacity for beaches to move inland. These include sediment management, dune restoration, natu-

re-based shoreline protection, and managed retreat. This highlights the importance of California’s

governance system in guiding shoreline adaptation.

As discussed, the Coastal Act provides legal mandates for protecting resources, ensuring public ac-

cess, and managing development. Local governments implement these through Local Coastal Pro-

grams (LCPs), which incorporate site-specific land-use and adaptation policies. Many cities and

counties are now engaging in adaptation planning vulnerability assessments, which frequently

identify beaches as highly exposed to long-term SLR. However, turning these assessments into

meaningful policies and actions has proven more difficult. Fewer than one-third have adopted

formal adaptation strategies, and less than a quarter have updated their LCPs to address SLR and

beach-specific responses (Lester et al., 2023).

Where planning has progressed, local strategies increasingly move away from reliance on hard

infrastructure, identifying strategies such as sediment management, nourishment, dune restora-

tion, adaptive setbacks, and phased retreat. These are tailored to local conditions and often follow

a model that adjusts strategies over time in response to observed changes in shoreline vulnerabi-

lity – so-called “adaptation pathways.” This planning shows a growing willingness to address hard

questions about beach loss, access, and equity.

Pragmatically, the persistence of beaches may increasingly serve as indicators of a region’s adap-

tive capacity and readiness to govern through actionable policy. Still, moving from assessment to

action is difficult, and a tension remains between near-term protection of property and long-term

preservation of public beach space and function (Id.). The statewide California Beach Resiliency

Plan intends to support the movement to meaningful local action by offering a shared science-ba-

sed framework and decision tools to help address the competing values and functions inherent in

the physical and social dimensions of beaches.

15

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

Conclusion: Beach Resiliency Planning – A Shared Framework For Understanding Beach

Appropriation And The Coastal Squeeze?

Sandy beaches are increasingly recognized as integrated socio-ecological systems (SES), shaped

by interactions between ecological, socio-cultural, and economic values and functions (Defeo et

al., 2021; James, 2000; Rodil et al., 2022). Beaches are dynamic environments affected by multiple

stressors, including sea-level rise and extreme storms, as well as human impacts from urbani-

zation, tourism, and armoring. These pressures can interact in feedback loops, moving systems

toward thresholds and leading to shifts that threaten beach resilience (Berry et al., 2014; Fanini

et al., 2020; Bianco and García-Ayllón, 2021; Schlacher et al., 2008). The SES perspective refocu-

ses attention away from single-purpose beach management frames (e.g., providing recreation or

protecting ecology alone) to more comprehensive and multi-dimensional adaptive strategies that

address ecological, socio-cultural, and economic vulnerabilities in relation to each other.

Several studies have applied this systems approach to practical tools, including resilience indices,

assessment frameworks, and vulnerability metrics (Lucrezi et al., 2016; McLachlan et al., 2013;

Bianco and García-Ayllón, 2021). Effective beach or coastal governance depends on adaptive, in-

terdisciplinary methods, supported by ongoing monitoring and inclusive engagement with diver-

se stakeholders. Participatory methods such as citizen science are also emphasized as tools for

improving environmental awareness and justice, deepening public involvement in the long-term

stewardship of beaches (Fanini et al., 2021).

Beach resiliency planning grounded in SES thinking offers a lens for analyzing how beach access,

appropriation, and adaptation unfold across diverse settings. It highlights the dynamic interplay

between geophysical processes, ecological functions, and social systems, including public access,

economics, cultural expression, equity, and governance (Figure 8). Hence, beach resiliency con-

cerns the system’s capacity to maintain and enhance the core values and function of beaches in

the face of environmental and social change. To what extent is the beach SES, confronted with the

coastal squeeze, able to resist, recover, adapt, or even transform to provide its core values (Folke et

al. 2016; The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC, 2022)?

The SES approach allows comparisons across settings where beach ownership may range from

more public to more privatized or commodified, as well as comparisons between legal and policy

statements about public shoreline access versus the implementation practice of providing pu-

blic access. These contrasts can reveal how legal frameworks, cultural norms, and environmental

risks affect beaches and influence who benefits from coastal spaces. The framework also deepens

understanding of the public law aspects of the coastal squeeze as a global trend accelerated by

the privatization of the beach backshore. In California, shoreline armoring tied to private proper-

ty entitlements is limiting beach migration and reducing public access, despite the Coastal Act’s

commitment to public coastal rights. But in places like Hawai’i, a more expansive legal definition

of the public trust may enable more effective adaptations such as managed retreat (Hawai’i, 2025).

16

Planning for Beach Resilience

Figure 8. The Beach Socio-Ecological System.

Source: Prepared by the authors

17

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

The SES framework also highlights where strategies align or diverge in balancing ecological re-

silience and social equity. The inclusion of cultural, political, and legal context, including histo-

ries, highlights the role of structural inequities in shaping patterns of beach appropriation (Gray,

2023). In the U.S., red-lining – a discriminatory practice denying housing loans and investments

in specific neighborhoods resulting in racial segregation – led to enduring patterns of inequitable

land ownership, including closer to the coast and beaches (Rothstein, 2017).

This was a central reason why the original vision of the California Coastal Act presumed that

“maximum access” included “opportunities for people of all incomes to live near the ocean”

(California Coastal Zone Conservation, 1975, p. 10) – a recognition that economic power was

central to realizing meaningful beach access. A half-century later, another (long overdue) re-

cognition of California’s tribal communities and their deep relationships with the coast further

underscores how social, political, and cultural dynamics necessarily shape beach resilience. An

SES perspective brings these relationships to the fore, supporting the possibility for more in-

clusive and thus transformative coastal adaptation (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, 2022; Ziervogel et al., 2016). By providing a common frame of reference for understan-

ding beach appropriation and the coastal squeeze across diverse social settings, it may also help

scholars and practitioners better realize their shared interests in protecting sandy beaches as

vital public spaces.

Funding

California Ocean Protection Council

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the collaborative and collegial research underway among

their various institutions that has resulted in this article.

References

11 LAGUNITA, LLC v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 904. Available on: https://caselaw.

f indlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/2102275.html. Access on: 29 out. 2025.

BARNARD, Patrick L.; DUGAN, Jenifer E.; PAGE, Henry M.; WOOD, Nathan J.; HART, Juliette A. Finzi; CAYAN, Daniel R.;

ERIKSON, Li H.; HUBBARD, Daniel M.; MYERS, Monique R.; MELACK, John M.; IACOBELLIS, Sam F. Multiple climate

change-driven tipping points for coastal systems. Scientific Reports, v. 11, n. 1, p. 15560, 30 jul. 2021. DOI: 10.1038/

s41598-021-94942-7. Available on: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8324862/pdf/41598_2021_Arti -

cle_94942.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

BERRY, Ashton J.; FAHEY, Shireen; MEYERS, Noel. Boulderdash and beachwalls: The erosion of sandy beach ecosys-

tem resilience. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 96, p. 104–111, 2014. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceco -

aman.2014.05.006. Access on: 24 abr. 2025.

BIANCO, Francesco; VEINTIMILLA, García-Ayllón, Salvador. Coastal resilience potential as an indicator of social and

morphological vulnerability to beach management. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 253, 107290, 2021. Avail-

able on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2021.107290. Access on: 09 abr. 2025.

BITTLE, Jake. As California attempts a ‘managed retreat,’ coastal homeowners sue to stay. Grist, 2023. Available

on: https://grist.org/housing/california-managed-retreat-half-moon-bay-coastal-commission/. Access on: 30 set 2025.

BRUNO, Isabelle; SALLE, Grégory. “État ne touche pas à mon matelas!” Conflits d’usage et luttes d’appropriation sur

la plage de Pampelonne. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, v. 218, p. 26–45, 2017. Available on: https://doi.

org/10.3917/arss.218.0026. Access on: 11 set. 2025.

18

Planning for Beach Resilience

BRUNO, Isabelle; SALLE, Grégory. “Before long there will be nothing but billionaires!” The power of elites over space

on the Saint-Tropez peninsula. Socio-Economic Review, v. 16, n. 2, p. 435–458, 2018. Available on: https://academic.oup.

com/ser/article-abstract/16/2/435/4978533?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false. Access on: 11 set. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Final Adopted 2024 Update, 2024. Available

on: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2024/2024AdoptedSLRPolicyGuidanceUpdate.pdf. Access

on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. Consent Administrative Penalty No. CCC-20-AP-02 (City of Newport Beach et

al., Newport Beach, Orange Co.). 2020. Available on: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2020/6/Th14/Th14-6-

2020-report.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. California Coastal Commission Environmental Justice Policy. 2019. 25 p.

Available on: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC_EJ_Policy_FINAL.pdf.. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. RESIDENTIAL ADAPTATION POLICY GUIDANCE Interpretive Guidelines for

Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs, 2018. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. Status of Vertical Accessways in Northern California Acquired by California

Coastal Commission Actions 1973 to 2015 Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, San

Mateo, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. 2016. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/10/w6c-10-2016.

pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. Escondido Beach Public Shoreline Access - Malibu, CA. n.d. https://docu -

ments.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/Escondido_Beach_Public_Shoreline_Access.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS (CCZCC). California Coastal Plan, 1975. https://digital-

commons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=caldocs_agencies. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA. California Constitution, Article X, § 4. Available on: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/. Access on: 10 abr. 2025.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, Vintage 2025 population projections (Baseline 2023). Available on: https://

dru-data-portal-cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/eebcf24ac5e942c7b8ab7011173efdbe/explore. Access on: 30 set. 2025.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, Report of Joint Legislative Committee on Seacoast Conservation, 1931. https://books.

google.com/books?id=y2ZKAAAAMAAJ, Access on: 09 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL (OPC), 2025. Available on: https://opc.ca.gov/about/. Access on: 19 set.

2025.

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update,

2024. California Sea Level Rise Science Task Force, California Ocean Protection Council, California Ocean Science Trust.

Available on: https://opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/California-Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance-2024-508.pdf.

Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. Staff Recommendation – Item 4: California Beach Resiliency Plan.

Sacramento: Ocean Protection Council, 12 dez. 2023. Available on: https://opc.ca.gov/2024/01/draft-slr-guidan -

ce-2024/. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. Strategic Plan to Protect California’s Coast and Ocean 2020–2025,

2020. Disponível: https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20200226/OPC-2020-2025-Strategic-Plan -

-FINAL-20200228.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

CALIFORNIA. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 30001 et seq. 2025. Available on: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.

gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=/. Acesso em : 09

nov. 2025.

CASTRO-SOTOMAYOR, José; MINOIA, Paola. Cultivating post-development: Pluriversal transitions and radical spaces

of engagement. In: MELBER, H. et al. (Ed.). Challenging Global Development. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024. p. 95–

116. Available on: https://link.springe r .com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-031-30308-1.pdf. Access on: 10 ab r . 2 025.

CHRISTENSEN, Jon; KING, Philip. Access for All: A new generation’s challenges on the California coast. Los Angeles:

UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, 2017. Available on: https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp-content/uplo -

ads/2017/01/UCLA-Coastal-Access-Policy-Report.pdf. Access on: 12 abr. 2025.

CLARKE, Berveley; TUALLY, Selina; SCOTT, Michael. Social networks and decision-making for coastal land-use plan-

ning, development and adaptation response. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, v. 8, n. 2, p. 101–116,

2016. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2016.1217378. Access on: 11 set. 2025.

19

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

DEFEO, Omar; MCLACHLAN, Anton; ARMITAGE, Derek; ELLIOT, Michael; PITTMAN, Jeremy. Sandy beach social ecolo-

gical systems at risk: Regime shifts, collapses, and governance failures. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 19,

n. 10, p. 564–573, 2021. Available on: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2406. Access

on: 03 abr. 2025.

DUGAN, Jenifer E.; EMERY, K. A ; ALBER, M.;, ALEXANDER, C.R.; BYERS, J. E.. 2018 Generalizing ecological effects of

shoreline armoring across soft sediment environments. Est. Coasts 41(Suppl 1): S180-S196. Available on: https://

www.researchgate.net/publication/318666204_Generalizing_Ecological_Effects_of_Shoreline_Armoring_Across_Soft_

Sediment_Environments. Access on: 10 nov. 2025.

DUGAN, Jenifer E.; HUBBARD, David M. Ecological effects of coastal armoring: A summary of recent results for expo-

sed sandy beaches in southern California. In: SHIPMAN, Hugh; DETHIER, Meghan N.; GELFENBAUM, Gut; FRESH, Kurt L.;

DINICOLA, Richard S. (eds.). 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 2010-5254, p. 187–194, 2010. Available on:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5254/pdf/sir20105254.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

DUGAN, Jenifer E.; HUBBARD, David M.; RODIL, Iván F.; REVELL, David L.; SCHROETER, Stephen. Ecological effects of

coastal armoring on sandy beaches. Marine Ecology, v. 29, p. 160–170, 2008. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1439-0485.2008.00231.x. Access on: 08 abr. 2025.

EMERY, Kyle A.; BAXTER, Timothy I.; CALLAHAN, Maxmilian C.; CAVANAUGH, Kyle C.; DUGAN, Jenifer E.; ENGEMAN,

Laura E.; HUBBARD, Davuid M.; JOHNSTON, Karina K.; WALKER, Ian J.; WISNIEWSKI, Jenna. Evaluating the response

of a pilot dune restoration project on an urban beach to an extreme wave surge event. Shore & Beach, v. 92, n. 4, p.

28–33, 2024. Available on: https://asbpa.org/publications/shore-and-beach/shore-beach-in-2024-vol-92/evaluatin-

g-the-response-of-a-pilot-dune-restoration-project-on-an-urban-beach-to-an-extreme-wave-surge-event/. Access on:

08 nov. 2025.

FANINI, Lucia; DEFEO, Omar; ELLIOTT, Michael. Advances in sandy beach research – Local and global perspectives.

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 234, 106646, 2020. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106646.

Access on: 06 abr. 2025.

FANINI, Lucia; COSTA, Leonardo Lopes; ZALMON, Ilana Rosental; REICHERS, Maraja. Social and ecological elements

for a perspective approach to citizen science on the beach. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, 694487, 2021.

Available

on:

https://public-pages-files-2025.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/

fevo.2021.694487/pdf. Access on: 04 abr. 2025.

FINGAL, Sara. Beach Boundaries: Fights over Access, Development, and Conservation on the American Coast. Univer-

sity of Washington Press, 2019.

FOLKE, Carl; BIGGS, Reinette; NORSTRÖM, Albert V.; REYERS, Belinda; ROCKSTRÖM, Johan. Social-ecological resilien-

ce and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, [S. l.], v. 21, n. 3, p. 41, 2016. Available on: https://

doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341. Access on: 10 abr. 2025.

FOXWELL-NORTON, Kerrie. Environmental communication and critical coastal policy: Communities, culture and

nature. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017. 160 p.

GESING, Friederike. Towards a more-than-human political ecology of coastal protection: Coast Care practices in

Aotearoa New Zealand. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, v. 4, n. 2, p. 208–229, 2021. Available on: https://

doi.org/10.1177/2514848619860751. Access on: 10 abr. 2025.

GRAY, Summer. In the Shadow of the Seawall: Coastal Injustice and the Dilemma of Placekeeping (First edition.). Uni-

versity of California Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520392755. 236 p.

HARDY, R. Dean; MILLIGAN, Richard A.; HEYNEN, Nik. Racial coastal formation: The environmental injustice of color-

blind adaptation planning for sea-level rise. Geoforum, v. 87, p. 62–72, 2017. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

geoforum.2017.10.005. Access on: 04 abr. 2025.

HAWAI’I. State Office of Planning. An Analysis of Managed Retreat Strategies in Hawai’i: Policy and Funding,

Opportunities and Challenges. 2025. https://climate.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Microsoft-Word -

-250307-OPSD-MR-Final-Report_formatted_clean.pdf. . Access on: 09 nov. 2025.

ICF INTERNATIONAL, SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, DAVIS GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH. In-

ventory and analysis of coastal and submerged archaeological site occurrence on the Pacific Outer Continental

Shelf. Camarillo (CA): U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 366 p. Report No.: OCS Stu-

dy BOEM 2013-0115, 2013. Available on: https://espis.boem.gov/f inal%20reports/5357.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. v. ILLINOIS, 146 U.S. 387, 453, 1892. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/

us/146/387/. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

20

Planning for Beach Resilience

JAMES, Rodney J. From beaches to beach environments: Linking the ecology, human-use and management of beaches

in Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 43, n. 6, p. 495–514, 2000. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-

5691(00)00040-5. Access on: 10 abr. 2025.

JARAMILLO, Eduardo; DUGAN, Jenifer; HUBBARD, David; MANZANO, Mario; DUARTE, Cristian. Ranking the ecological

effects of coastal armoring on mobile macroinvertebrates across intertidal zones on sandy beaches. Science of

The Total Environment, v. 755, pt. 2, 2021. Article 142573. ISSN 0048-9697. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

scitotenv.2020.142573. Access on: 09 abr. 2025.

JEFFERSON, Alison Rose. Living the California Dream: African American Leisure Sites during the Jim Crow Era. Uni-

versity of Nebraska Press, 2020. 366 p.

JOHNSON, Taylor N.; DRESSLER, Kensey I.; HERNANDEZ, Nicolas; ENDRES, Danielle. Environmental justice: The third

pillar of environmental communication research. In: HANSEN, Anders; COX, Robert. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook

of Environment and Communication. 2. ed. Routledge, 2022. Available on: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003119234.

Access on: 06 abr. 2025. 504 p.

JOHNSTON, Karina K.; HUBBARD, David M.; EMERY, Kyle A.; GRUBBS, Melodie W.; DUGAN, Jenifer E. Using dune res-

toration on an urban beach as a coastal resilience approach. Frontiers in Marine Science, v. 10, 2023. Available on:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1187488. Access on: 09 abr. 2025.

KAHRL, Andrew W. The Land Was Ours: African American Beaches from Jim Crow to the Sunbelt South. Harvard Uni-

versity Press, 2012. 376 p.

KARLAMANGLA, Soumya. Trump and Newsom Find Common Ground Attacking California’s Coastal Agency, New

York Times, March 22, 2025. Available on: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/us/trump-newsom-california-co-

astal-commission.html Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

KIM, Jinwon; LYU Seong Ok; SONG, Hakjun. Environmental justice and public beach access. City & Community, v. 18,

n. 1, p. 49-70, 2019. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12372. Access on: 11 set. 2025.

KING, Philip G.; McGREGOR, Aaron R.; WHITTET, Justin D. The economic costs of sea-level rise to California beach

communities. San Francisco: San Francisco State University; California Department of Boating and Waterways, 2011.

Available on: https://media.scp r .org/documents/2011/09/14/King_etal_SLR_7_20_11.pdf. Access on: 17 abr. 2025.

LESTER, Charles; ROZAL, Sam; COOPER, Ashley; SCALZO, Miranda; WRUBEL, Nick; HOWARD, Naomi. Planning

for Sea Level Rise on California’s Coast Supplemental Report: San Francisco Bay, Federal Lands, Tribal Lands,

and State Parks. Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara,

California, 2024. Available on: https://ocpc.msi.ucsb.edu/california-coastal-adaptation-project. Access on: 08 nov.

2025

LESTER, Charles; MANLEY, Caitlin., DINH, Yvonne., ROZAL, Samantha; COOPER, Ashley; WINTERS, Lauren., MUN-

STER, Katie., BOK, Tatiana., WRUBEL, Nick. Planning for Sea Level Rise on California’s Coast: Status, Trends, and

Recommendations. Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara,

California, 2023. Available on: https://ocpc.msi.ucsb.edu/california-coastal-adaptation-project. Access on: 08 nov.

2025.

LESTER, Charles. California’s coastal protection program: A model for integrated coastal management in Chile? In:

MARTÍNEZ, Carolina. et al. (eds.). Hacia una Ley de Costas en Chile: bases para una gestión integrada de áreas costeras.

Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Geografía, 2022. Available on: https://programaaustral -

patagonia.cl/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GEOLIBRO_DIGITAL-3-comprimido.pdf. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

LESTER, Charles. Protecting public trust shoreline resources in the face of sea level rise. Santa Barbara: Ocean and

Coastal Policy Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, 2021. Available on: https://digitalcommons.

humboldt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=hsuslri_state. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

LESTER, Charles. CZM in California: Successes and Challenges Ahead. Coastal Management, v. 41, n. 3, p. 219–244,

2013. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2013.784891. Access on: 08 nov. 2025.

LIGHTFOOT, Kent G.; PARRISH, Otis. California Indians and their environment: An introduction. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 2009. 512 p. Available on:

LOW, Setha. (ed.). Beach Politics: Social, Racial, and Environmental Injustice on the Shoreline. New York: New York

University Press, 2025. 344 p.

LUCREZI, Serena; SAAYMAN, Melville; VAN DER MERWE, Peet. An assessment tool for sandy beaches: A case study for

integrating beach description, human dimension, and economic factors to identify priority management issues. Ocean

& Coastal Management, v. 121, p. 1–22, 2016. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.12.003. Access

on: 09 abr. 2025.

21

Charles Lester; Kiki Patsch; José Castro-Sotomayor; Jenifer Dugan; Summer Gray; Philip King; Ella McDougall;

Kriss K. Neuman; Dan Reineman; Sarah Jenkins; Lilia Mourier; Miranda Scalzo

MCLACHLAN, Anton; DEFEO, Omar; JARAMILLO, Eduardo; SHORT, Andrew D. Sandy beach conservation and recre-

ation: Guidelines for optimising management strategies for multi-purpose use. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 71, p.

256–268, 2013. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.10.005. Access on: 07 abr. 2025.

MILSTEIN, Tema; CASTRO-SOTOMAYOR, José. (eds.). Routledge handbook of ecocultural identity. Abingdon: Routle-

dge, 2020. 524 p.

MONTGOMERY, Montgomery C.; CHAKRABORTY, Jayajit; GRINESKI, Sara E.; COLLINS, Timothy W. An environmental

justice assessment of public beach access in Miami, Florida. Applied Geography, v. 62; p. 147-156, 2015. Available

on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.016. Access on: 11 set. 2025.

MOYLE, John Baron. The Institutes of Justinian. 5. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Available on: https://www.gu -

tenberg.org/f iles/5983/5983-h/5983-h.htm. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

NOLLAN v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, 483 U.S. 825, 1987. Available on: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-servi -

ces/service/ll/usrep/usrep483/usrep483825/usrep483825.pdf. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

OLMSTED, FREDERICK LAW, Report of State Park Survey of California, Prepared for the California State Park Commis-

sion, 1929. Available on: https://www.olmstedonline.org/RelatedDocument/WebLink/6220. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

PATSCH, Kiki; REINEMAN, Dan R. Sea level rise impacts on coastal access. Shore & Beach, v. 92, n. 2, Spring, 2024.

Available on: https://asbpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/92_2_patsch-2-1.pdf. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

PATSCH, Kiki; REINEMAN, Dan R. Coastal Access Equity and Environmental Justice. Shore & Beach, In Review.

PENDLETON, Linwood; KILDOW, Judith. The non-market value of California’s beaches. Shore & Beach, v. 74, n. 2, p.

34–37, 2006.

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment, 2025. Available

on: https://www.ppic.org/?show-pdf=true&docraptor=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ppic.org%2Fpublication%-

2Fppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-environment-july-2025%2 F. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

REINEMAN, Dan R.; WEDDING, Lisa M.; HARTGE, Eric; McENERY, Winn; REIBLICH, Jesse. Coastal access equity and

the implementation of the California Coastal Act. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, v. 36, p. 89–108, nov., 2016.

Available on: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/reineman.pdf. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

RODIL, Iván F.; HARRIS, Linda R.; LUCREZI, Serena; CERRANO, Carlo. Sandy beach management and conservation:

The integration of economic, social and ecological values. In: GONÇALVES, Sílvia; FERREIRA, Susana (Eds.). Sandy Beach-

es as Endangered Ecosystems: Environmental Problems, Possible Assessment and Management Solutions. 1 ed. Florida:

CRC Press, 2022. 310 p. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429053252. Access on: 30 out. 2025.

ROTHSTEIN, Richard. The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York:

Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017. 368 p.

THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE – IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-

mate Change. [PÖRTNER, H.-O. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Available on: https://www.

ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/. Access on: 18 abr. 2025.

SCHLACHER, Thomas A.; SCHOEMAN, Dave S.; DUGAN, Jenifer; LASTRA, Mariano; JONES, Alan; SCAPINI, Felicita; McLA-

CHLAN, Anton. Sandy beach ecosystems: key features, sampling issues, management challenges and climate change im-

pacts. Marine Ecology, v. 29, supl., p. 70–90, jul. 2008. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2007.00204.x.

Access on: 06 abr. 2025.

SCHOOLER, Nicholas K.; DUGAN, Jenifer E.; HUBBARD, David M. No lines in the sand: Impacts of intense mechanized

maintenance regimes on sandy beach ecosystems span the intertidal zone on urban coasts. Ecological Indicators, v. 106,

2019. Article 105457. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105457. Access on: 06 abr. 2025.

STATE OF HAWAIʻI. Assessing the feasibility and implications of managed retreat strategies for vulnerable coas-

tal areas in Hawaiʻi: Final report. Honolulu: Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program, 2019. Available on:

https://f iles.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/ormp/assessing_the_feasibility_and_implications_of_managed_retreat_strate -

gies_for_vulnerable_coastal_areas_in_hawaii.pdf. Access on: 31 out. 2025.

VITOUSEK, Sean; BARNARD, Patrick L.; LIMBER, Patrick; ERIKSON, Li H.; COLE, Blake. A model integrating longshore and

cross-shore processes for predicting long-term shoreline response to climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Earth Surface, v. 122, n. 4, p. 782–806, 2017. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF004065. Access on: 11 abr. 2025.

ZIERVOGEL, Gina; COWEN, Anna; ZINIADES, John. Moving from adaptive to transformative capacity: Building foun-

dations for inclusive, thriving, and regenerative urban settlements. Sustainability, v. 8, n. 9, p. 955, 2016. https://www.

mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/9/955 Access on: 09 nov. 2025.

22

Planning for Beach Resilience

Planejamento para a resiliência das

Planificación para la resiliencia de las

playas: un marco para comprender la

apropiación de las playas y la compresión

costera

praias: uma estrutura para compreender

a apropriação das praias e a compressão

costeira

Resumo

Resumen

A Califórnia enfrenta uma perda significativa de

praias devido à compressão costeira até 2100,

sem uma adaptação eficaz. Reconhecendo a im-

portância das praias para o tecido social, cultural,

econômico e ambiental da Califórnia, o estado está

desenvolvendo o Plano de Resiliência das Praias

da Califórnia (CBRP). O CBRP avaliará a vulnerabi-

lidade das praias e orientará a adaptação local por

meio de uma estrutura interdisciplinar que abor-

da processos geofísicos, acesso e recreação, valo-

res econômicos e ecológicos, significado cultural,

pressões de desenvolvimento, justiça e governan-

ça. Essa abordagem das praias como sistemas so-

cioambientais complexos pode ser útil para apoiar

esforços de manutenção das praias como espaços

públicos vitais diante da elevação do nível do mar

e do aumento das restrições costeiras.

California se enfrenta a una pérdida significativa

de playas debido a la compresión costera para

el año 2100 si no se implementa una adaptaci-

ón efectiva. Reconociendo la importancia de las

playas para el tejido social, cultural, económico

y ambiental de California, el Estado está desar-

rollando el Plan de Resiliencia de Playas de Cali-

fornia (CBRP). El CBRP evaluará la vulnerabilidad

de las playas y guiará la adaptación local mediante

un marco interdisciplinario que aborda los proce-

sos geofísicos, el acceso y la recreación, los valores

económicos y ecológicos, la importancia cultural,

las presiones del desarrollo, la justicia y la gober-

nanza. Esta visión de las playas como sistemas

socioambientales complejos puede ser útil para

apoyar los esfuerzos por mantenerlas como espa-

cios públicos vitales ante el aumento del nivel del

mar y las crecientes restricciones costeras.

Palavras-chave: Acesso à Praia; Compressão Cos-

teira; Costa da Califórnia; Resiliência da Praia;

Sistemas Socioecológicos; Governança Costeira;

Adaptação Climática.

Palabras clave: Acceso a la Playa; Compresión

Costera; Costa de California; Resiliencia de las

Playas; Sistemas Socioecológicos; Gobernanza

Costera; Adaptación Climática.

Timeline of the Manuscript



Received: May 2025

First Review: August2025

Second Review: June 2025

Third Review: July 2025

Accepted for Publication: September 2025

Author revision: September 2025

Grammar, Spelling and ABNT review: October 2025

Author revision: October 2025

Published on December 2025

23