IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare10/59260.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Coastal planning in North Shore City, New Zealand: Developing responsible coastal erosion policy

Author

Listed:
  • Wilson, Amanda

Abstract

North Shore City’s coastline has been subject to intensive development pressure over the last 15 years. In this time, new developments have established along previously undeveloped areas of coastline and existing sites have redeveloped with much larger houses. This paper provides a description of the planning controls that currently affect coastal development and an assessment of the effectiveness of these controls. This is followed by an analysis of the role of local government in controlling future development. Contention arises when attempts are made to control the property rights of landowners to protect their properties from coastal erosion. The impacts of private coastal protection works on the coastline have wider impacts than their immediate location and can influence public perception of the coastal environment. Coastal erosion is a prominent issue for North Shore City and this increase in development has increased the risk to both property owners and potentially the Council. Authorities are concerned that current coastal planning controls do not address coastal erosion to a great enough degree. A methodology for assessing change along the coastline is described and used to identify where planning controls are not being effective by using indicators such as the presence of coastal protection structures and signs of erosion. Alternative policy approaches are identified and evaluated using a cost-benefit analysis framework. It is envisaged that this preliminary cost-benefit analysis will identify policy aspects requiring future in-depth investigation. The practical implications for different policy approaches regarding coastal erosion and private property rights are also explored.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilson, Amanda, 2010. "Coastal planning in North Shore City, New Zealand: Developing responsible coastal erosion policy," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59260, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:59260
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/59260/files/Wilson_%20Amanda.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.59260?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen K. Swallow & Michael P. McGonagle, 2006. "Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 56-67.
    2. Whitmarsh, David & Northen, James & Jaffry, Shabbar, 1999. "Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 453-463, July.
    3. Gary D. Libecap, 2009. "The tragedy of the commons: property rights and markets as solutions to resource and environmental problems," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(1), pages 129-144, January.
    4. Libecap, Gary D., 2009. "The tragedy of the commons: property rights and markets as solutions to resource and environmental problems," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16.
    5. Cerin, Pontus, 2006. "Bringing economic opportunity into line with environmental influence: A discussion on the Coase theorem and the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 209-225, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stelios Rozakis & Athanasios Kampas, 2022. "An interactive multi-criteria approach to admit new members in international environmental agreements," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3461-3487, September.
    2. Elizabeth Hoffman & Matthew L. Spitzer, 2011. "The Enduring Power of Coase," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 63-76.
    3. Claudius Gros, 2022. "Generic catastrophic poverty when selfish investors exploit a degradable common resource," Papers 2208.08171, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    4. Gabriel Natividad, 2016. "Quotas, Productivity, and Prices: The Case of Anchovy Fishing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 220-257, March.
    5. Costello, Christopher & Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes, 2015. "Partial enclosure of the commons," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 69-78.
    6. David Blandford, 2010. "Presidential Address: The Visible or Invisible Hand? The Balance Between Markets and Regulation in Agricultural Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 459-479, September.
    7. Zhou, Jie & Zhong, Hua & Hu, Wuyang & Qiao, Guanghua, 2022. "Substitution versus wealth: Dual effects of non-pastoral income on livestock herd size," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    8. Azaguagh, Ismail & Driouchi, Ahmed, 2018. "Understanding Commons and Anticommons in different economic contexts," MPRA Paper 116621, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Lingling Hou & Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2023. "Grassland tenure reform and grassland quality in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(5), pages 1388-1404, October.
    10. Joseph Hiebert & Karen Allen, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities across Space: A Geographically Weighted Regression of Housing Preferences in Greenville County, SC," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Yi Liu & Peng Li & Zhiwei Zhang, 2018. "Resilient or Not: A Comparative Case Study of Ten Local Water Markets in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    12. David A. Anderson, 2020. "Environmental Exigencies and the Efficient Voter Rule," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-7, November.
    13. Biggar, Darryl R. & Hesamzadeh, Mohammad Reza, 2022. "Welfare-maximising dispatch and pricing of water in a gravity-fed river network," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Daniel Morales Martínez & Alexandre Gori Maia & Junior Ruiz Garcia, 2022. "Spatial diffusion of efficient irrigation systems: a study of São Paulo, Brazil," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 690-712, July.
    15. Polonsky, Michael Jay, 2011. "Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 1311-1319.
    16. Dolejší, David, 2018. "Coproduction of property rights: The management of watercourses in pre-modern Bohemia," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 50-59.
    17. Nagase, Yoko & Uehara, Takuro, 2011. "Evolution of population-resource dynamics models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 9-17.
    18. Isaksen, Elisabeth Thuestad & Richter, Andries, 2019. "Tragedy, property rights, and the commons: investigating the causal relationship from institutions to ecosystem collapse," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90606, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Carnis Laurent, 2014. "The Political Economy of Lighthouses: Some Further Considerations," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 143-165, December.
    20. Sofia Lundberg & Per-Olov Marklund & Elon Strömbäck, 2016. "Is Environmental Policy by Public Procurement Effective?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 478-499, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:59260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.