1. Introduction
The coastline, as the interface between the land and marine environments, is a key area of interaction in ecological and economic systems [1,2]. Characterized by its rich biodiversity and abundant resources, this dynamic region is an important site for human activities, offering significant opportunities for economic development through several sectors such as tourism, fisheries, and transportation [3,4]. Coastal infrastructure, such as ports, plays a vital role in facilitating international trade and economic growth. It also enhances a nation’s strategic position and connectivity to global markets [5,6,7]. The coastal zone, being narrow and ecologically sensitive, is vulnerable to both natural and human-induced threats [8]. Natural events like storm surges, flooding, and erosion can damage infrastructure and disrupt trade, with impacts worsened by climate change and rising sea levels [9,10]. Human pressures, such as urbanization, industrialization, and coastline resource exploitation, increase these risks, leading to habitat loss, pollution, and biodiversity decline [11]. To ensure long-term sustainability, comprehensive planning and resilient designs are essential to protect both infrastructure and the environment [12,13].
Assessing the suitability of coastal development involves a combination of environmental, economic, and social factors to ensure that economic growth does not compromise ecological integrity [14]. Such assessments provide the theoretical basis for implementing effective coastal management strategies that reconcile economic needs with environmental protection [15,16,17]. This assessment becomes particularly important in the context of increasing climate change and anthropogenic pressures. The dual challenge between ecological degradation and economic needs highlights the need for a comprehensive framework to consider shoreline zoning and marine functional zoning [18,19]. Community participation is essential in integrated coastal management, incorporating local knowledge into decision-making and fostering collaboration among stakeholders. Research shows that active involvement improves coastal management effectiveness and promotes long-term environmental and social benefits [20,21,22].
In recent years, advances in coastal planning have emphasized the importance of integrated management approaches [23,24]. For example, many studies have explored spatial and temporal changes in coastal land use, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to visualize and analyze coastal landscape dynamics [25,26,27]. In addition, there are studies that focus on ecological indicators to assess the health of coastal ecosystems to provide valuable insights into the overall environmental quality of these areas [28,29]. Despite the progress made, differences in policies and perceptions of coastal management, as well as inconsistencies in planning practices across administrative regions, often hinder effective coastal governance [30]. In China, the importance of coastal management is reflected in its extensive and economically valuable coastal areas, which contribute significantly to the country’s GDP and host a significant proportion of the population [31]. With increasing urbanization, coastal areas face the ever-increasing threat of ecological degradation and over-exploitation of resources. Therefore, there is an urgent need for effective zoning and functional differentiation to address these challenges. However, the complexity of coastal planning and marine zoning is further compounded by the lack of standardized methodologies and differences in socio–economic contexts across provinces [32,33].
Many studies focused on isolated factors like coastal ecosystems or resource management, neglecting the complex interactions between ecosystems, human communities, and environmental changes that affect coastal sustainability [34,35]. Coastal management strategies are often centered on government or specific groups, lacking cross-sector coordination and overlooking the involvement of local communities, scientists, and environmental organizations [36,37]. Additionally, traditional research paid little attention to enhancing long-term resilience in coastal ecosystems and communities, focusing instead on short-term solutions. These shortcomings hindered the development of comprehensive, actionable, and long-term solutions for sustainable coastal management [38,39].
This paper emphasizes the critical importance of coastal planning, aiming to contribute to the discourse on sustainable development. It explored the complex interactions between coastal ecosystems, human communities, and environmental changes, offering insights into the need for coordinated management approaches. This study provided practical recommendations to enhance the resilience of coastal ecosystems and communities, focusing on sustainable resource use and increased collaboration among governments, local stakeholders, and the scientific community. Ultimately, it highlighted the essential role of integrated planning in ensuring long-term coastal sustainability.
2. Methodology
2.1. Coastal Zone Division System
The boundary of a coastal zone generally refers to the area where land and ocean meet but its exact definition depends on the context, such as ecological, legal, or management considerations [40]. For coastal management, the zone typically extends from the landward boundary, often up to the highest tide line, and extends seaward from a few kilometers offshore to as far as 50–100 km [41,42]. Coastlines, much like terrestrial landscapes, have been observed to display a variety of functional types that reflect their unique developmental patterns and utilization strategies [43]. In this study, coastlines were categorized based on their primary functions, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the diverse roles that different sections of the coastline played in supporting various human activities and ecological processes. The coastline was categorized into three distinct types: production coastline, ecological coastline, and living coastline [44]. The production coastline encompassed areas primarily used for economic activities such as fishing, shipping, and industrial developments, playing a key role in local and national economies. The ecological coastline included regions vital for maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance, such as wetlands, mangroves, and coral reefs, which provided essential services like water filtration, carbon sequestration, and erosion protection. Finally, the living coastline represented areas used for residential and recreational purposes, including urban developments, tourism facilities, and community spaces, enhancing the quality of life for both residents and visitors while serving as social and cultural hubs that connected people to the natural beauty of coastal environments.
The production coastline, ecological coastline, and living coastline were also classified into third-level coastlines based on functional attributes. The definitions of third-level coastlines can be found in Table 1. This systematic approach not only aided in understanding the multifaceted roles of coastlines but also informed better management and conservation strategies tailored to the unique characteristics of each coastline type. By recognizing these distinctions, stakeholders could make more informed decisions that promote sustainable development while safeguarding ecological integrity.
2.2. Coastal Development Suitability Evaluation
An evaluation index system was developed to assess the suitability of coastal development and utilization, considering the diverse characteristics of its coastlines. This systematic approach allowed for a comprehensive analysis of various factors influencing coastal areas, leading to informed decision-making regarding their development potential.
Based on the assessments conducted, the coastlines were classified into three distinct categories: highly suitable, moderately suitable, and unsuitable for development and utilization. Each classification was defined by specific criteria that reflected the environmental, economic, and social conditions present in the respective areas.
Highly Suitable Areas were identified as those exhibiting optimal conditions for development. These regions were characterized by favorable environmental conditions, existing infrastructure, and limited ecological constraints. It was determined that such areas could support a range of activities, including tourism, commercial enterprises, and recreational facilities, without causing significant harm to the surrounding ecosystems. Sustainable management practices were recommended to ensure that development efforts aligned with environmental preservation goals.
Moderately Suitable Areas were assessed as having potential for development but also possessed certain limitations that needed to be addressed. Factors such as moderate environmental sensitivity, the presence of vulnerable habitats, or infrastructural deficiencies were noted in these regions. Consequently, it was emphasized that careful planning and management strategies should be implemented to mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment. Environmental impact assessments were often conducted prior to any proposed development activities to safeguard ecological integrity.
Unsuitable Areas were classified as those facing significant environmental challenges or holding high conservation value. These regions were often characterized by critical habitats, protected zones, or susceptibility to natural disasters, such as flooding and erosion. It was concluded that development activities in these areas could lead to irreversible damage to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Therefore, strict conservation measures were recommended to protect these vital ecological zones from any form of development.
Table 2 presents the evaluation indices that were utilized to determine the suitability levels of coastal development and utilization based on these references [45,46,47,48,49]. The indices included a variety of criteria, such as ecological health, socio–economic viability, and environmental vulnerability. Each criterion was selected based on its relevance to the overall assessment of coastal areas, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing their development potential.
Through the application of this evaluation index system, stakeholders—including urban planners, policymakers, and environmental advocates—were provided with essential insights that guided their decisions concerning coastal development. This structured framework not only facilitated sustainable growth in suitable areas but also ensured the protection of sensitive ecosystems, ultimately contributing to the long-term resilience and sustainability of Shenzhen’s coastal environments.
3. Case Study
3.1. Overview of the Study Area and Data
Shenzhen is the economic center city closest to the deep sea among China’s coastal cities, with a marine area of 1145 square kilometers and a coastline of 260.5 km (Figure 1). The coastline is divided into western and eastern sections: the western coastline stretches from the Dongbao River estuary in Bao’an District to the Shenzhen River estuary in Futian District, while the eastern coastline extends from Shatoujiao in Yantian District to Bagang in Dapeng District. Of the total coastline, 160.1 km are artificial, and 100.4 km are natural, accounting for 61.47% and 38.53%, respectively. The middle section between the western coastline and the eastern coastline borders Hong Kong, with a length of 27.5 km, covering parts of Futian District and Yantian District and the entire Luohu District. Shenzhen, as a coastal city with rapid economic development, is typical of the study. Shenzhen’s coastline faces multiple challenges between economic activities and ecological protection, especially in the process of urban expansion and infrastructure development. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of Shenzhen’s coastline zoning and marine function division will provide important lessons and references for other coastal cities and provide theoretical support and empirical foundations for achieving a higher level of coastal management and sustainable development.
In this study, the coastline and marine data came from the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources. Environmental and ecological data for the marine environment were sourced from the National Meteorological Center, the State Oceanic Administration, and Sentinel-2 data. This study established a series of sampling points to assess the current zoning status of Shenzhen’s marine areas, specifically at the following locations: Nan’ao (114°28′49″ E, 22°32′48″ N), Qixing Bay (114°33′6″ E, 22°33′22″ N), Shenzhen Bay (113°57′5″ E, 22°29′15″ N), and West Bay (113°50′0″ E, 22°35′36″ N). These sampling points, combined with Shenzhen’s water quality monitoring stations, effectively cover various nearshore marine areas, as shown in Figure 1. The monitored water quality elements include chlorophyll, algae, total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), nitrogen, and phosphorus. The data from the site were the daily values, with the period ranging from 1 January 2023 to 31 October 2024.
3.2. Results of Coastal Zone Division and Development Suitability Evaluation
Based on the coastline classification system and evaluation standards, a zoning analysis of the coastline utilization status in Shenzhen was conducted. First, data on the coastline’s geographical features, current land use, and ecological conditions were collected, utilizing field surveys and remote sensing technologies to identify different coastline types, including natural coastlines, urbanized coastlines, and industrial/commercial areas. Then, each coastline segment was assessed for its development potential and ecological suitability. Based on these assessments, the coastline was divided into the production coastline, ecological coastline, and living coastline. The final zoning results were mapped, with the delineation of secondary coastlines illustrated in Figure 2.
From this figure, it can be inferred that the predominant types of coastlines in Shenzhen are represented by the blue line, indicating living coastlines, and the green line, indicating ecological coastlines, both of which exhibit widespread distribution across various regions, totaling over 88%. The living coastlines are primarily concentrated along the western and southern coasts of Shenzhen, particularly in Bao’an District, Nanshan District, and Yantian District. In contrast, the ecological coastlines are mainly located in Dapeng District, with scattered distributions in other districts, while production coastlines constitute a smaller proportion, mostly found in the northeastern and northwestern bays.
The evaluation results for Shenzhen’s five districts indicate that Dapeng District significantly outperformed the other districts in terms of ecological coastline evaluation. Futian District, noted for its high degree of urbanization, also excelled in ecological protection efforts. As for the production coastline evaluation, Bao’an District ranked highest among the five districts, followed closely by Dapeng District. In terms of living coastline evaluation, Nanshan District received the highest rating, followed by Bao’an District. Comparatively, Dapeng District needs to draw upon relevant successful experiences to enhance the quality of life for its residents.
Figure 3 illustrates the functional zoning of the tertiary coastline, primarily reflecting the distribution of different coastline types in Shenzhen and the diversity of coastal development and utilization. Biological coastlines are mainly found in Dapeng District and Futian District, with Futian District’s coastline being entirely composed of biological coastlines. The western coastline, especially in the Futian District, is home to valuable mangrove forests and ecologically significant wetlands and serves as an important habitat for migratory birds. These areas are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services, such as water filtration and carbon sequestration. Due to their environmental importance and the need for conservation, the primary function of this coastline has been designated as ecological protection rather than tourism development. This decision ensures the preservation of these fragile ecosystems, preventing overdevelopment and disturbance to wildlife. By focusing on ecological protection, the region aims to maintain its role as a vital sanctuary for both local and migratory species, supporting sustainable environmental management in the long term.
This observation seems inconsistent with the economic conditions and advanced urban development of Futian District, as its boundaries are largely separated by a river adjacent to Hong Kong. Additionally, the coastline along the Pearl River Estuary is relatively short and designated as a mangrove protection area, which results in its coastline remaining largely in a natural state.
Transportation and urban coastlines are predominantly distributed across Bao’an District, Nanshan District, and Yantian District, while fisheries coastlines are primarily located in the northwestern and northeastern coastal areas of Shenzhen. The classification of secondary and tertiary functional zones for Shenzhen’s coastlines provides a foundational understanding of the status of coastal development and utilization. Consequently, this study proceeds to evaluate the suitability of coastal development and utilization in Shenzhen.
Based on the evaluation index system established in Section 2, suitability assessments for coastal development and utilization were conducted for different types of coastlines. Each type of coastline was evaluated according to the eight specified indicators, with individual segments receiving scores based on these criteria. The indicators associated with the primary coastline type served as the main measurement criteria, while the other indicators acted as supplementary reference points to aid in determining suitability levels.
Using the evaluation index system and conducting a layered indicator analysis, the results revealed classifications for ecological importance, disaster risk, aquaculture production types, agricultural land types, potential for inland development, and coastline stability (see Figure 4).
The comprehensive rating of the indicator layers, based on a qualitative and quantitative evaluation underlining key highlights and comparative analyses, resulted in the classification shown in Figure 5, which delineated the suitability levels for coastal development and utilization in Shenzhen. Overall, the suitability zoning map revealed no distinct distribution trends among the three types of coastlines.
Most coastlines deemed suitable for development had already been utilized, except for some untouched regions. These developed coastlines could be assessed for their current utilization efficiency, allowing for evaluations based on rationality and intensity of use. Appropriate modifications and secondary developments could be implemented to enhance these areas.
Generally suitable zones predominantly comprised typical agricultural land or natural coastlines with good development potential. Such coastlines represented future segments for changing usage objectives and primary development purposes, characterized by high plasticity, significant development potential, and minimal ecological impact.
In contrast, the unsuitable segments included crucial ecological coastlines, nature reserves, ecological redline areas, essential farmland, and important fish conservation zones. To ensure the preservation of the ecological environment along the coastline and to promote sustainable economic development, it would be necessary to introduce certain policies and legal measures for protection. These areas represented an intangible redline in the process of urban development and construction.
The analysis revealed significant regional disparities, with varying circumstances across different areas as shown in Figure 6. Firstly, the lengths of coastal lines differed markedly among the districts and towns, with Dapeng District featuring a notably longer coastline than others. As illustrated in the data, Futian District exhibited 100% of its coastline as unsuitable for development. This finding appeared inconsistent with Futian’s economic status and advanced urban infrastructure. The discrepancy was attributed to its borders primarily being adjacent to Hong Kong across the river, along with a very short coastline at the Pearl River Estuary, which is designated as a mangrove protection area. Consequently, much of its coastline remained in a natural state, incorporating sites such as the Futian Mangrove Ecological Park and Shenzhen Bay Park. Urban development in this region prioritized maintaining a certain distance from the mangrove coastline while constructing infrastructure such as coastal avenues and the Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway, thereby ensuring effective coastline protection.
Similarly, the coastline segment in Nanshan District along Shenzhen Bay also fell within a mangrove protection area. Here, the establishment of parks and conservation zones further contributed to the safeguarding of the coastline. In contrast to the districts, where unsuitable development zones predominated, other regions, particularly Bao’an District, showcased a higher proportion of coastlines amenable to development. Additionally, Dapeng District, due to its extensive coastline, presented significant potential for future development initiatives.
4. Discussion
The assessment of coastline development suitability in Shenzhen reveals critical insights into the intricate balance between ecological preservation and urban development. The results indicate a complex distribution of coastline suitability, with no distinct trend observed across the three categories of coastline. This suggests that development pressures are unevenly distributed and that many areas considered suitable for development are already utilized, potentially indicating an urgent need for efficiency evaluations of current uses. One significant strength of this study lies in its robust methodological framework, which integrates both qualitative and quantitative evaluations. This comprehensive approach enables stakeholders to visualize and understand the interplay between ecological value and developmental potential across various coastline segments.
Coastline zoning methods were developed using various approaches, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Geographical-based zoning was primarily determined by spatial features such as terrain, slope, beach type, and the curvature of the coastline, with remote sensing data and GIS frequently utilized. Ecological zoning was based on the identification of sensitive areas within coastal ecosystems, such as wetlands and coral reefs, according to their ecological functions [50]. Socio–economic zoning was employed to classify coastal areas according to human activities, including fisheries, tourism, and port construction [51,52]. Risk-based zoning was used to assess environmental sensitivity and disaster risks, particularly focusing on areas susceptible to flooding and sea-level rise [53]. Comprehensive zoning was often performed by integrating multiple factors, utilizing methods such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for a more holistic approach [54,55,56].
The approach developed in this study was distinguished by its multi-dimensional assessment framework, which integrated both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate ecological, socio–economic, and environmental aspects. This method was designed to provide flexibility, allowing for adaptations in response to changes in the coastal environment, particularly under the influence of climate change. By focusing on localized specifics, customized zoning was created to better reflect the unique needs of each coastal region. Furthermore, stakeholder participation was incorporated into the process, ensuring that decision-making was both inclusive and transparent. This combination of sustainability, adaptability, and local engagement contributed to the establishment of a comprehensive solution that balanced both development and conservation objectives.
However, despite these advantages, this study does encounter several limitations. Notably, the predefined zoning classifications may not fully capture localized ecological nuances, particularly in areas of high ecological sensitivity, such as natural reserves and ecologically significant coastlines. The reliance on generalized suitability categories may overlook the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems, which can be influenced by a variety of factors, including climate change, anthropogenic activities, and biological interactions.
Regionally, this study highlights significant disparities in coastline length and development potential, particularly evident in districts such as Dapeng New District, which possesses a longer coastline compared to others. The findings in Futian District, where 100% of the coastline is deemed unsuitable for development, raise questions regarding the interplay of urban planning, ecological conservation, and economic development. These insights underscore the importance of tailoring management strategies to the unique characteristics of each district, emphasizing the necessity for adaptive frameworks that can accommodate ongoing environmental changes.
Furthermore, this study also corroborated previous research, showing that rapid urbanization and population migration have placed immense pressure on the natural and ecological environments of coastal areas, leading to dramatic changes in coastlines [57,58]. These changes had increasingly negative effects on both the environment and human activities, such as reducing the land’s carrying capacity and polluting seawater [59]. Geographically, the stability of the western coastline was lower than that of the eastern coastline. In the west, most coastlines experienced accretion and significant changes, while the eastern coastlines were more stable or eroded, with less pronounced changes. The stability of the eastern coastlines was primarily influenced by geographical location and environmental factors, whereas human activities played a more decisive role in the western coastlines. This study identified reliable rules for coastline stability, which could be used for prediction [60]. Furthermore, human activity was largely shaped by the coastal zone’s geomorphology, with stronger interference near both the landward and coastal boundaries, reflecting a growing public awareness of the importance of ecological protection. Compared to previous research [61], the results of this study showed that this method could describe the effects of human activities on coastal zones in more detail.
In tourist-oriented coastal cities, the application of the research results should focus on preserving natural coastal resources while balancing the needs of tourism development. Zoning should prioritize the protection of ecosystems, such as beaches, coral reefs, and wetlands, which are vital to attract visitors. Tourist zones can be designated near key attractions, ensuring minimal environmental impact through controlled development and sustainable tourism practices. Measures such as eco-tourism initiatives, environmental education programs, and the use of low-impact infrastructure should be emphasized. Additionally, zoning policies should consider seasonal variations in tourist traffic and provide adaptive management strategies that accommodate peak seasons while safeguarding the environment. Public–private partnerships can play a crucial role in implementing sustainable tourism practices and ensuring the long-term viability of both the tourism industry and coastal ecosystems.
For industrial coastal cities, the research results should be applied with a focus on managing the tension between industrial development and environmental preservation. Zoning should consider the locations of key industrial facilities such as ports, factories, and oil terminals, ensuring that these areas are optimized for economic productivity while minimizing risks to the coastal environment. Environmental protection zones should be designated around sensitive ecological areas to mitigate pollution and protect biodiversity. Risk-based zoning should prioritize disaster risk reduction, particularly in areas prone to industrial accidents or environmental degradation. Furthermore, zoning regulations should promote green industrial practices, including the adoption of cleaner technologies and waste management systems. This approach will not only support economic growth but also ensure the long-term sustainability of both the industrial sectors and the surrounding coastal ecosystems. Collaboration with industries and regulatory authorities is essential to enforce these zoning practices and ensure compliance with environmental standards.
In conclusion, while the suitability assessment of coastlines in Shenzhen serves as a critical tool for resource management, it is imperative to address its limitations by incorporating adaptive management strategies and stakeholder engagement. Future research should emphasize the integration of real-time ecological data and community input to enhance the resilience and sustainability of coastal environments.
5. Conclusions
The suitability zoning of shoreline development and utilization in Shenzhen reveals no clear spatial distribution trend among different types of shorelines. Instead, the suitability areas show a staggered distribution, consisting of three main types. Most developed shoreline areas demonstrate high efficiency in development and utilization, while unutilized shoreline areas possess significant development potential. To optimize resource use and maintain a balance between economic activities and ecological protection, targeted transformation and secondary development measures should be implemented. These findings provide valuable insights for other coastal cities, as the systematic suitability assessment framework can help identify shoreline areas suitable for development or protection. This approach offers a scientific foundation for coastal management policies, guiding sustainable development and conservation efforts in similar coastal environments.
Conceptualization, Y.L. and H.Y. (Han Yu); methodology, H.Y. (Han Yu); software, F.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, H.Y. (Hongbing Yu); funding acquisition, H.Y. (Hongbing Yu). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to the data management regulations of the Shenzhen Research Institute of Nankai University.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. The boundary and stations of Shenzhen City and its location in Guangdong Province, China.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. The proportion (a) and length (b) of coastal development and utilization suitability by region of Shenzhen’s coastline.
Coastline types and definitions.
| Types of Second-Level Coastline | Types of Third-Level Coastlines | Definitions |
|---|---|---|
| Production Coastlines | Agricultural Coastlines | Coastlines used for agricultural production, including farmland and orchards along the coast. |
| Fisheries Coastlines | Coastlines designated for fishery production and the protection of important fish species. | |
| Industrial Coastlines | Coastlines utilized for industrial production activities. | |
| Living Coastlines | Urban Coastlines | Coastlines primarily used for infrastructure development in cities, towns, and new coastal areas. |
| Transportation Coastlines | Coastlines developed for transportation facilities and infrastructure. | |
| Tourism and Recreation Coastlines | Coastlines designated for various tourism, entertainment, and leisure activities. | |
| Developed but Unused Coastlines | Coastlines that have been reclaimed or modified but remain unused. | |
| Ecological Coastlines | Biological Coastlines | Coastlines formed by intertidal vegetation such as mangroves, coral reefs, and shell banks. |
| Bedrock Coastlines | Coastlines characterized by undeveloped intertidal zones primarily composed of rock. | |
| Sandy Coastlines | Coastlines made up mainly of sand and gravel, shaped by wave action in a relatively flat configuration. | |
| Silty and Muddy Coastlines | Coastlines where the intertidal zone is primarily composed of silt and mud, formed through tidal and runoff processes. |
Coastal development suitability evaluation indicators.
| Types of Second-Level Coastline | Index | Highly Suitable | Generally Suitable | Not Suitable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Production Coastlines | Ecological Importance | Natural Coastlines | Scenic Tourism Areas and Resort Coast Segments | Scenic Tourism Areas and Resort Coast Segments |
| Disaster Risk | Slope < 5° | Slope 5–20° | Slope > 20° | |
| Living Coastlines | Agricultural Land Types | Non-Agricultural Coast Segments | General Agricultural Coast Segments | Basic Farmland Coast Segments |
| Aquaculture Types | Reclaimed Coastal Areas Awaiting Aquaculture | General Aquaculture Coast Segments | Fishery Marine Eco-Redline Areas, Important Fish Species Protection Areas | |
| Ecological Coastlines | Developable Width of the Coastal Stripe | Developable Width over 1000 m | Developable Width between 500 and 1000 m | Developable Width less than 500 m |
| Shoreline Stability | Bedrock-Type Coastlines | Slow Accretion/Erosion Coastlines | Accreting/Eroding Coastlines |
References
1. Schlüter, A.; Van Assche, K.; Hornidge, A.K.; Văidianu, N. Land-sea interactions and coastal development: An evolutionary governance perspective. Mar. Policy; 2020; 112, 103801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103801]
2. Refulio-Coronado, S.; Lacasse, K.; Dalton, T.; Humphries, A.; Basu, S.; Uchida, H.; Uchida, E. Coastal and marine socio-ecological systems: A systematic review of the literature. Front. Mar. Sci.; 2021; 8, 648006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.648006]
3. Singh, G.G.; Cottrell, R.S.; Eddy, T.D.; Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M. Governing the land-sea interface to achieve sustainable coastal development. Front. Mar. Sci.; 2021; 8, 709947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.709947]
4. Mejjad, N.; Rossi, A.; Pavel, A.B. The coastal tourism industry in the Mediterranean: A critical review of the socio-economic and environmental pressures & impacts. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2022; 44, 101007.
5. Ward, N.D.; Megonigal, J.P.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Bailey, V.L.; Butman, D.; Canuel, E.A.; Diefenderfer, H.; Ganju, N.K.; Goñi, M.A.; Graham, E.B. et al. Representing the function and sensitivity of coastal interfaces in Earth system models. Nat. Commun.; 2020; 11, 2458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16236-2]
6. Verschuur, J.; Koks, E.E.; Hall, J.W. Ports’ criticality in international trade and global supply-chains. Nat. Commun.; 2022; 13, 4351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32070-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35896543]
7. Saha, R.C. Chattogram Port: A dedicated service institution to evolve the country boldly. Marit. Technol. Res.; 2023; 5, 258294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2023.258294]
8. Mooser, A.; Anfuso, G.; Williams, A.T.; Molina, R.; Aucelli, P.P. An innovative approach to determine coastal scenic beauty and sensitivity in a scenario of increasing human pressure and natural impacts due to climate change. Water; 2021; 13, 49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w13010049]
9. Griggs, G.; Reguero, B.G. Coastal adaptation to climate change and sea-level rise. Water; 2021; 13, 2151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w13162151]
10. Koks, E.E.; Le Bars, D.; Essenfelder, A.H.; Nirandjan, S.; Sayers, P. The impacts of coastal flooding and sea level rise on critical infrastructure: A novel storyline approach. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct.; 2023; 8, (Suppl. S1), pp. 237-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2022.2142741]
11. Iyiola, A.O.; Akinrinade, A.J.; Ajayi, F.O. Effects of Water pollution on biodiversity along the coastal regions. Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2022; pp. 345-367.
12. de Alencar, N.M.P.; Le Tissier, M.; Paterson, S.K.; Newton, A. Circles of coastal sustainability: A framework for coastal management. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 4886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12124886]
13. Barzehkar, M.; Parnell, K.E.; Soomere, T.; Dragovich, D.; Engström, J. Decision support tools, systems and indices for sustainable coastal planning and management: A review. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2021; 212, 105813. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105813]
14. Jattak, Z.U.; Wu, W.; Gao, J.; Zhang, K.; Murtaza, S.H.; Jan, M.; Ahmed, A. Advancing the initiatives of sustainable coastal and marine areas development in Pakistan through marine spatial planning. Sci. Prog.; 2023; 106, 00368504231218601. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00368504231218601] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38083809]
15. Voyer, M.; Farmery, A.K.; Kajlich, L.; Vachette, A.; Quirk, G. Assessing policy coherence and coordination in the sustainable development of a Blue Economy. A case study from Timor Leste. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2020; 192, 105187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105187]
16. Demirel, N.; Ulman, A.; Yıldız, T.; Ertör-Akyazi, P. A moving target: Achieving good environmental status and social justice in the case of an alien species, Rapa whelk in the Black Sea. Mar. Policy; 2021; 132, 104687. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104687]
17. Nicolodi, J.L.; Asmus, M.L.; Polette, M.; Turra, A.; Seifert, C.A., Jr.; Stori, F.T.; Shinoda, D.C.; Mazzer, A.; de Souza, V.A.; Gonçalves, R.K. Critical gaps in the implementation of Coastal Ecological and Economic Zoning persist after 30 years of the Brazilian coastal management policy. Mar. Policy; 2021; 128, 104470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104470]
18. Teng, X.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, P.; Liu, L.; Hu, H.; Yue, Q.; Ou, L.; Xu, W. Implementing marine functional zoning in China. Mar. Policy; 2021; 132, 103484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.055]
19. Liu, S.; Cai, F.; He, Y.; Qi, H.; Rangel-Buitrago, N.; Liu, J.; Zheng, J. Integrating marine functional zoning in coastal planning: Lessons from the Xiasha Beach Resort case study. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2024; 249, 107016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107016]
20. Carapuço, M.M.; Taborda, R.; Andrade, C.; de Jonge, V.N. How to foster scientific knowledge integration in coastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2021; 209, 105661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105661]
21. Loch, T.K.; Riechers, M. Integrating indigenous and local knowledge in management and research on coastal ecosystems in the Global South: A literature review. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2021; 212, 105821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105821]
22. Ballad, E.L.; Morooka, Y.; Shinbo, T. Ensuring sustainability of community participation in locally-managed marine protected area in north-western Cagayan, Philippines. Marit. Technol. Res.; 2022; 4, 258234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2022.258234]
23. Le Tissier, M. Unravelling the relationship between ecosystem-based management, integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning. Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 403-413.
24. Ehler, C.N. Two decades of progress in Marine Spatial Planning. Mar. Policy; 2021; 132, 104134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104134]
25. Moradi, M.; Kazeminezhad, M.H.; Kabiri, K. Integration of Geographic Information System and system dynamics for assessment of the impacts of storm damage on coastal communities-Case study: Chabahar, Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.; 2020; 49, 101665. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101665]
26. Komolafe, A.A.; Apalara, P.A.; Ibitoye, M.O.; Adebola, A.O.; Olorunfemi, I.E.; Diallo, I. Spatio-temporal analysis of shoreline positional change of Ondo State coastline using remote sensing and GIS: A case study of Ilaje coastline at Ondo State in Nigeria. Earth Syst. Environ.; 2021; 6, pp. 281-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00270-1]
27. Nath, A.; Koley, B.; Choudhury, T.; Saraswati, S.; Ray, B.C.; Um, J.S.; Sharma, A. Assessing coastal land-use and land-cover change dynamics using geospatial techniques. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 7398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15097398]
28. Mahrad, B.E.; Newton, A.; Icely, J.D.; Kacimi, I.; Abalansa, S.; Snoussi, M. Contribution of remote sensing technologies to a holistic coastal and marine environmental management framework: A review. Remote Sens.; 2020; 12, 2313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs12142313]
29. Ranta, E.; Vidal-Abarca, M.R.; Calapez, A.R.; Feio, M.J. Urban stream assessment system (UsAs): An integrative tool to assess biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services. Ecol. Indic.; 2021; 121, 106980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106980]
30. Uddin, M.S.; Haque, C.E.; Khan, M.N. Good governance and local level policy implementation for disaster-risk-reduction: Actual, perceptual and contested perspectives in coastal communities in Bangladesh. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J.; 2021; 30, pp. 94-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2020-0069]
31. Zheng, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, X. How does environmental regulation moderate the relationship between foreign direct investment and marine green economy efficiency: An empirical evidence from China’s coastal areas. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2022; 219, 106077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106077]
32. Riera-Spiegelhalder, M.; Campos-Rodrigues, L.; Ensenado, E.M.; Dekker-Arlain, J.D.; Papadopoulou, O.; Arampatzis, S.; Vervoort, K. Socio-economic assessment of ecosystem-based and other adaptation strategies in coastal areas: A systematic review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2023; 11, 319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020319]
33. Wu, W.; Wan, L. Coastal ecological and environmental management under multiple anthropogenic pressures: A review of theory and evaluation methods. Curr. Trends Estuar. Coast. Dyn.; 2024; 4, pp. 385-415.
34. Gissi, E.; Manea, E.; Mazaris, A.D.; Fraschetti, S.; Almpanidou, V.; Bevilacqua, S.; Coll, M.; Guarnieri, G.; Lloret-Lloret, E.; Pascual, M. et al. A review of the combined effects of climate change and other local human stressors on the marine environment. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 755, 142564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142564]
35. Palit, K.; Rath, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Das, S. Microbial diversity and ecological interactions of microorganisms in the mangrove ecosystem: Threats, vulnerability, and adaptations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 32467-32512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19048-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35182344]
36. Nurhidayah, L.; Davies, P.; Alam, S.; Saintilan, N.; Triyanti, A. Responding to sea level rise: Challenges and opportunities to govern coastal adaptation strategies in Indonesia. Marit. Stud.; 2022; 21, pp. 339-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40152-022-00274-1]
37. Zanin, G.M.; Barbanente, A.; Romagnoli, C.; Parisi, A.; Archetti, R. Traditional vs. novel approaches to coastal risk management: A review and insights from Italy. J. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 346, 119003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119003]
38. Doelle, M.; Puthucherril, T.G. Nature-based solutions to sea level rise and other climate change impacts on oceanic and coastal environments: A law and policy perspective. Nord. J. Bot.; 2023; 2023, e03051. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/njb.03051]
39. Van der Meulen, F.; IJff, S.; van Zetten, R. Nature-based solutions for coastal adaptation management, concepts and scope, an overview. Nord. J. Bot.; 2023; 2023, e03290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/njb.03290]
40. Kenchington, R.; Crawford, D. On the meaning of integration in coastal zone management. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 1993; 21, pp. 109-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(93)90022-Q]
41. Martínez, M.L.; Intralawan, A.; Vázquez, G.; Pérez-Maqueo, O.; Sutton, P.; Landgrave, R. The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol. Econ.; 2007; 63, pp. 254-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022]
42. Zhu, L.; Song, R.; Sun, S.; Li, Y.; Hu, K. Land use/land cover change and its impact on ecosystem carbon storage in coastal areas of China from 1980 to 2050. Ecol. Indic.; 2022; 142, 109178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109178]
43. Hobohm, C.; Schaminée, J.; van Rooijen, N. Coastal habitats, shallow seas and inland saline steppes: Ecology, distribution, threats and challenges. Perspectives for Biodiversity and Ecosystems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 279-310.
44. Zou, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y. An analysis of land use conflict potentials based on ecological-production-living function in the southeast coastal area of China. Ecol. Indic.; 2021; 122, 107297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107297]
45. Wei, B.; Li, Y.; Suo, A.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Y. Spatial suitability evaluation of coastal zone, and zoning optimisation in ningbo, China. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2021; 204, 105507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105507]
46. Li, Y.; Zhang, F.; Li, R.; Yu, H.; Chen, Y.; Yu, H. Comprehensive Ecological Functional Zoning: A Data-Driven Approach for Sustainable Land Use and Environmental Management—A Case Study in Shenzhen, China. Land; 2024; 13, 1413.
47. Bagheri, M.; Zaiton Ibrahim, Z.; Mansor, S.; Manaf, L.A.; Akhir, M.F.; Talaat, W.I.A.W.; Beiranvand Pour, A. Land-use suitability assessment using Delphi and analytical hierarchy process (D-AHP) hybrid model for coastal city management: Kuala Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.; 2021; 10, 621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10090621]
48. Shunmugapriya, K.; Panneerselvam, B.; Muniraj, K.; Ravichandran, N.; Prasath, P.; Thomas, M.; Duraisamy, K. Integration of multi criteria decision analysis and GIS for evaluating the site suitability for aquaculture in southern coastal region, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2021; 172, 112907. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112907] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34464819]
49. Furlan, E.; Dalla Pozza, P.; Michetti, M.; Torresan, S.; Critto, A.; Marcomini, A. Development of a Multi-Dimensional Coastal Vulnerability Index: Assessing vulnerability to inundation scenarios in the Italian coast. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 772, 144650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144650] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33770878]
50. Wekpe, V.O.; Whitworth, M.; Baily, B. Terrestrial environmental sensitivity index mapping (TESIM) of the coastal areas of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Sci. Afr.; 2024; 24, e02152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02152]
51. Fiorentino, S.; Sielker, F.; Tomaney, J. Coastal towns as ‘left-behind places’: Economy, environment and planning. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc.; 2024; 17, pp. 103-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsad045]
52. Leotaud, N.; Laidlow-Ferdinand, A.; Clauzel, S.; Vaughan, N. Towards sustainable blue tourism in the Caribbean: Policy pathways to support community-based coastal and marine tourism. 2024; Available online: https://bluetourisminitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/BlueTourismCaribbean_Study_BTI.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2024).
53. Galluccio, G.; Bisaro, A.; Fiorini Beckauser, E.; Biancardi Aleu, R.; Hinkel, J.; Casas, M.F.; Espin, O.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Campostrini, P. Sea Level Rise in Europe: Adaptation Measures and Decision Making Principles. State Planet Discuss.; 2024; 2024, pp. 1-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/sp-3-slre1-6-2024]
54. Sauve, P.; Bernatchez, P.; Glaus, M. Multicriteria decision analysis to assist in the selection of coastal defence measures: Involving coastal managers and professionals in the identification and weighting of criteria. Front. Mar. Sci.; 2022; 9, 845348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.845348]
55. Ghosh, S.; Mistri, B. Assessing coastal vulnerability to environmental hazards of Indian Sundarban delta using multi-criteria decision-making approaches. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2021; 209, 105641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105641]
56. Baig, M.R.I.; Shahfahad,; Ahmad, I.A.; Tayyab, M.; Asgher, M.S.; Rahman, A. Coastal vulnerability mapping by integrating geospatial techniques and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) along the Vishakhapatnam coastal tract, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens.; 2021; 49, pp. 215-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12524-020-01204-6]
57. Yi, L.; Chen, J.; Jin, Z.; Quan, Y.; Han, P.; Guan, S.; Jiang, X. Impacts of human activities on coastal ecological environment during the rapid urbanization process in Shenzhen, China. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2018; 154, pp. 121-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.005]
58. Yi, L.; Qian, J.; Kobuliev, M.; Han, P.; Li, J. Dynamic evaluation of the impact of human interference during rapid urbanisation of coastal zones: A case study of Shenzhen. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062254]
59. Miranda, N.A.; Bintoro, R.S.; Prasita, V.D. The pattern of coastline changes and wave modelling around the expansion of PPI Popoh Tulung Agung, East Java. Marit. Technol. Res.; 2023; 5, 262926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2023.262926]
60. Wu, X.; Liu, C.; Wu, G. Spatial-temporal analysis and stability investigation of coastline changes: A case study in Shenzhen, China. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens.; 2017; 11, pp. 45-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2017.2755444]
61. Zheng, Z.; Wu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Z.; Marinello, F. Exploration of eco-environment and urbanization changes in coastal zones: A case study in China over the past 20 years. Ecol. Indic.; 2020; 119, 106847. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106847]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.