coastal cultural heritage a resource to be included (1)

lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e19

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Coastal cultural heritage: A resource to be included in integratedcoastal zone management

Sorna Khakzad a, *, Marnix Pieters b, Koenraad Van Balen c

a KU Leuven, 01 Arenberg Castle, RLICC Office, Heverlee 3001, Belgiumb Flanders Heritage Agency, Maritiem en Onderwater Erfgoed, Phoenixgebouw, Koning Albert II-laan 19 Bus 5, 1210 Brussel, Belgiumc KU Leuven Department of Civil Engineering, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40 e Box, 2448, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 January 2015Received in revised form21 July 2015Accepted 30 July 2015Available online xxx

Keywords:Coastal cultural heritageIntegrated coastal zone managementMarine spatial planning

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kh

vlaanderen.be (M. Pieters), [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.0320964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Khakzad, SOcean & Coastal Management (2015), http:/

a b s t r a c t

Maritime and coastal cultural landscape, encompassing land and sea, and underwater is an importantpart of our cultural resources in the coastal areas. Although, integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)has theoretically addressed the importance of cultural ecosystems, cultural resources have mostly beenoverlooked in holistic coastal management plans. Overlooking cultural resources results in loss of cul-tural identity associated with certain habitats; loss of tourism, recreational and educational opportu-nities; decline in local ecological knowledge, skills and technology pertaining to habitat management;and loss of opportunities for social and cultural capital. Literature and practice show that there is noproper definition and evaluation of coastal cultural heritage is available and coastal cultural heritage hasnot been considered as a resource with high level of benefit for development and people. Acknowledgingthe importance of coastal cultural heritage as a resource in ICZM, and the role that ICZM can play inlinking land and sea management approaches highlights the necessity of new methods for defining andevaluation of coastal cultural heritage. This paper proposes models and guidelines for defining andevaluating coastal cultural heritage to be included in Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and ICZM as aresource through application of the integrative complexity theory and learning from the experiences inmanagement of other coastal resources. The results will be an integrative evaluation method and aguideline for delineating coastal cultural areas. The method and tool will be examined through the caseof Ostend in Belgium.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Cultural Heritage is “that part of the past which we select in thepresent for contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural,political, or social” (Graham, 2002). Human interaction with seasand oceans in the coastal areas influenced the natural landscapeand has a crucial role in the formation of maritime and coastalcultural heritage. Maritime and coastal cultural heritage, encom-passing land and sea, and underwater, is an important part of ourcultural resources and requires a proper valorization in order toplay its role in sustainable development for poverty reduction,livelihood promotion, education, and environmental protection(Campbell, 2000; LGA report, 2002: 14), and helps to promote

akzad), [email protected] (K. Van Balen).

., et al., Coastal cultural herita/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoam

people's sense of identity and place attachment (Salmons, 2007).However, the task of including coastal cultural resources in holisticmanagement plans of the coastal areas has been complicated by anarray of natural, economic, social and political factors.

Considering that holistic means that each element can receiveits significance only by its position and relationship with the sur-rounding elements and multiple dimensions and control groups,the main objective of this research is to highlight the significance ofcoastal cultural heritage as a resource to be included in MSP andICZM. The sub-objectives of this research are to offer: 1) a frame-work for balanced evaluation of coastal cultural heritage as aresource among other resources; and 2) a conceptual basis to definethe area of cultural significance in the coastal areas. The frameworkconsists of an interdisciplinary and integrative system for evalua-tion of coastal cultural heritage. The tool to define the area ofcoastal cultural heritagedwhich is going to be called coastal cul-tural middle groundd is a complementary tool to MSP that willoffer a methodology to delineate the extent of coastal cultural

ge: A resource to be included in integrated coastal zonemanagement,an.2015.07.032

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]




www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09645691

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.032



S. Khakzad et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e192

resources in the terrestrial and marine environment.In Europe integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) are the most accepted holistic ap-proaches for management of the coastal areas. ICZM is a process forthe management of the coast using an approach that integrates allaspects of the coastal zone in order to balance environmental,economic, social, cultural and recreational objectives in an attemptto achieve sustainability (Hopkins et al., 2012; Hopkins and Bailley,2013). Through an integrative approach, ICZM tries to avoid frag-mentation and sectorial management which are results of the splitin jurisdiction among different levels of government, and in thelandewater interface. As a tool to ICZM, Marine Spatial Planning(MSP) is a key ingredient in achieving integrated management ofthe coastal area and its resources (Douvere et al., 2007). MSP is apublic process for analyzing and planning the spatial and temporaldistribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve eco-nomic, environmental and social objectives (UNESCO, MSP). ICZMand MSP are engrained in the Ecosystem Approach, which ac-knowledges human with his cultural diversity as an integralcomponent of ecosystem (Convention on Biological Diversity,1993).

ICZM and MSP have tried to address cultural resources to someextent and the identification and protection of cultural heritage isseen as a social benefit derived from MSP. In Europe, the UK, theNetherlands, Germany and Belgium are well advanced in sup-porting MSP, either at legal or at policy level, or both. However, theprotection of underwater and coastal cultural heritage is not apriority in those countries that are on the forefront of MSP.Recently, at the European level, the new Marine Directive (2014)states that underwater cultural heritage requires an integratedplanning andmanagement approach, and should be included in theestablishment and implementation of marine spatial planning(Directive 2014/89/EU, 2014). However, specific frameworks andguidelines for evaluating the significance of cultural heritage as aresource for inclusion in MSP and ICZM have not yet been properlyexplored (Craig, 2004; Doody, 2004). Although, there are regula-tions at different local, national and international levels to protectand preserve coastal cultural heritage (Santoro et al., 2014; Ehlerand Douvere, 2009), most policy documents and scientific litera-ture have so far ignored coastal and underwater cultural heritage asa valuable resource to be taken into account in MSP (Europa webportal, 2011). This trend can be seen in most coastal managementplans and even in new established holistic resources managementpolicies, and was apparent at the Third ICZM Conference, held inAntalya, Turkey in October 2014.

The present study is a part of a project carried out on behalf ofthe Flemish government: the IWT/SBO project: SEARCH. Archaeo-logical Heritage in the North Sea, which aims to develop an efficientevaluation method and proposals for sustainable management ofcoastal cultural heritage in Belgian Part of the North Sea. Part of theSEARCH objectives is to define coastal cultural heritage and toevaluate cultural heritage as a resource in order to integrate coastalcultural heritage into MSP and ICZM. In the next sections, first anoverview of the state of coastal cultural heritage in ICZM and MSPin several countries will be presented, and then the models andtools will be developed according to the highlighted issues, andfinally the developed models and tools will be examined for thecase of Belgian Part of the North Sea in Ostend.

2. An overview of the state of coastal cultural heritage inICZM and MSP

Regarding a holistic approach towards coastal cultural heritagemanagement among several countries, Italy, Spain, Portugal, andEngland have given especial attention to coastal cultural heritage to

Please cite this article in press as: Khakzad, S., et al., Coastal cultural heritaOcean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoam

be considered as another resource in the coastlines. These countriesrecognized the importance of multidisciplinary approach as afoundation for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. As Vallegastates multidisciplinary evaluation approach of coastal culturalheritage is necessary for integrating coastal cultural heritage as aresource in holistic coastal management plans (Vallega, 2003;Pinder and Vallega, 2003). In the framework of an integratedmanagement policy, coastal cultural heritage should be evaluatedconsidering the global change, economic systems and geopoliticalfluctuations (Callegari and Vallega, 2002; Pinder, 2003) in order toinclude the historical assets in development plans (Vallega, 2001).

An example of initiatives in Italy is the guidelines for manage-ment of coastal cultural heritage. These guidelines deal with con-ceptual and methodological frameworks, and provide operationalapproaches for decision makers on local level for the coastal re-sources (Callegari and Vallega, 2002). The goal of this managementplan is to offer a methodology to evaluate coastal cultural heritagein the framework of an integrated management policy, consideringthe global change, economic systems and geopolitical changes. Theidea was applied to coastal areas in Italy and several islands. Thisstrategy helps focus shifts to the cultural heritage in the coastalareasdon-land and underwaterdby including the historical assetsin development plans (Vallega, 2001).

In addressing management of coastal cultural heritage, Spaindetected a series of general problems such as lack of a precisedefinition of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Spanish Law (Law 16/1985) and the need for specific evaluation criteria and documen-tation guidelines create a proper management plan. Spain recog-nizes that Underwater Cultural Heritage should not be vulnerableto sectorial regulations and should be designed so that the gov-ernment body responsible for cultural heritage can take part in thedecisions on the use and exploitation of the marine environment(Spain Ministry of Culture, 2009).

In the framework of the EU and its recommendation for ICZM,the UK adopted the Ecosystem Approach. The Convention on Bio-logical Diversity (CBD) describes an Ecosystem Approach as “astrategy for the integrated management of land, water and livingresources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in anequitable way”. The Approach adopted by the CBD looks beyond‘natural’ ecosystems to include social, cultural and economic factorswhich are wholly interdependent with biodiversity and ecosystemgoods and services. UK recognized the importance of marineenvironment, and now ICZM programs are implemented by coastalpartnerships at the sub national level in an ad hoc manner, despitethe lack of national coastal policy (Cummins et al., 2004a, b).

Portugal has acknowledged the pressure induced by urbandevelopment and economic activities on not only the naturalenvironment, but also cultural heritage sites, and urban seafronts inthe coastal areas. In order to improve policies and coastal planningand management, Portugal has developed a set of coastal zonemanagement plans (Taveira-Pinto, 2004) which are founded oneight ‘Principal Objectives’, one of which has focus on culturalheritage: ‘Conservation of Resources, Natural and Landscape Heri-tage’, both in the marine and terrestrial components (Veloso-Gomes et al., 2008; Veloso-Gomes and Taveira-Pinto, 2003).However, in general, less attention has been given to the culturalheritage management, until about 2004, that the value of heritagewas more recognized for cultural-tourism promotion.

Studies in other parts of the world (e.g. North Carolina, USA,Australia, News land) also showed that neglecting cultural heritagevalues in holistic management plans, either tangible, or intangible,results in loss of local, national and sometime international culturalvalues that can benefit people in different ways (Jacobson, 2012;Khakzad, 2012; Cummins et al., 2010; Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2006; Bone, 1997; AIMA, 1994).


S. Khakzad et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e19 3

Concerning delineating coastal areas administrative and juris-dictional criteria have been the most applied trend for planners todelineate the boundaries. The boundaries of municipalities, orother jurisdictional areas, have been used to define the landwardlimits of geographical coverage while, seawards, the outer bound-aries have been set by reference to internationally recognizedjurisdictional zones (such as those elaborated by UNCLOS, (1982)).However, the use of such criteria that encompass cultural andnatural values has been criticized (Vallega, 2003; CoE, 1999). Thereasons for the criticisms are that these measurements are notflexible, and although administrativeway of determining the area iseasy, it might cause the exclusion of some assets, which are out ofthe perimeters of the arranged lines. Therefore, a differentapproach based on ecological criteria was developed mainly fordelineation of natural resources and can be seen in defining MarineProtected Area (Oceanservice.noaa.gov, 2015) and ParticularlySensitive Sea Area (PSSA) (Imo.org, 2015). Ecological criteria areessential for the preservation of the ecological conditions and forthe effectiveness of coastal management strategies (Vallega, 2003).Delineation of the management area is a major step, and de-termines subsequent steps and outcomes, especially in order toretain the specific characteristics of the interface of both themarineand terrestrial components (Sanctuaries.noaa.gov, 2015; Varmer,2014; Veloso-Gomes et al., 2008; Veloso-Gomes and Taveira-Pinto, 2003). In this step, decision makers select the features and/or the extents of the area under management. A clear evaluation ofthe assets and their linkage with each other and with people is acrucial point for determining the area, and essential for preparationof a good management plan.

Analysis of the existing cases recognized the need to adapt anintegrated approach in addressing coastal cultural heritage(Tengberg et al., 2012) in order to include it as a resource in Inte-grated Coastal ZoneManagement. Although, it was highlighted thatthe ecosystem approach does encompass all resources includingthe social, cultural and economic factors, and in some cases effortshave been made to include cultural heritage in ICZM, there hasbeen less focus on cultural resources. Overlooking cultural heritagein these schemes is due to the lack of proper evaluation and interestgiven to understanding cultural heritage as an integral resource inthe coastal management schemes. Political studies such as the onesby Bourdieu (1984) and economic studies such as the ones byThrosby (1999; 2000; 2002; 2005; 2010) on cultural capital illu-minated that cultural heritage preservation needs a broader justi-fication of use and values considering different dimensions.Therefore, assessing coastal cultural heritage within multiple di-mensions of integrative complexity, as control groups, will showthe gaps and potentials for defining and evaluation of coastal cul-tural heritage as a resource for inclusion in ICZM. In order toaddress the complex situation of coastal cultural heritage, andachieving the research objectives, the present study has developedmodels to evaluate coastal cultural heritage to incorporate culturalheritage in ICZM. This study, also, offers a methodology for zoningthe area of coastal cultural heritage. These steps can not onlyimprove the state of coastal cultural heritage within holistic man-agement pans, but also enhance ICZM approaches in areas withcoastal cultural values.

3. Theoretical framework and methodology

Considering the multi-faceted issues in coastal areas, in order toachieve the objectives of this researchdto define the coastal cul-tural area and to develop an evaluation toold the present studyadopted the integrative complexity theory. This theory has beenapplied as the basis for ICZM andmanagement of natural resources.Studies and experiences show that natural resources have got more


attention in management of coastal resources, and benefit fromlonger management experiences since 1970s. Natural resourceshavemuch in commonwith cultural resources. Both are limited andperishable, and in the case of cultural resources, once lost, they areirreplaceable. Therefore, the present study relied on learning fromthe previous approaches from the management of naturalresources.

The concept of integrative complexity is recognized as essentialto tackle complex problems effectively (Bammer et al., 2005).Integrative complexity is a measure of the intellectual style used byindividuals or groups in processing information, problem solving,and decision making involving multiple dimensions (Kozhevnikov,2007). The integrated planning and management of coastal re-sources and environments has been defined as an approach basedon the physical, socioeconomic and political issues inherent in adynamic coastal system (Knnedy and Thomas, 1995). Complexitylooks at these different issues through two components of differ-entiation and integration. Differentiation refers to the perception ofdifferent dimensions when considering an issue. Integration refersto the recognition of cognitive connections among differentiateddimensions or perspectives. (Www2.psych.ubc.ca, 2015; Hawkins,2011; Suedfeld et al., 1992; Driver and Streufert, 1969).

Considering integrated approaches, there are many links be-tween heritage values with other dimensions such as economic,social, natural and political. Briefly, in terms of social dimension,the connection between people and their heritage can be used forthe better protection of their heritage (FARO Convention, 2005;Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2015). Studies of social andcultural memories, identity and sense of place are proofs of this fact(Triandis, 1994; Krakow Charter, 2000; Cristinelli, 2002; Plieningeret al., 2004; Ford, 2011). In economics, the new development inecological economics can be incorporated into heritage valueassessment (Blaug, 1987) along with the concept of cultural capitalThrosby (1999, 2001, 2005). The notions of market values and non-market values and use values and non-use values will better beassessed and understood through combination of the use of clas-sical and ecological economics (Riley, 1999; Renting et al., 2003;Urquhart and Acott, 2014; Reed et al., 2013). Concerning naturaldimension, the cooperation between heritage specialists and nat-ural scientists will lead to new discoveries. e.g., in many places inthe world, a lot of knowledge about marine ecology, climate changeand sea-level rise has been gained from archaeological data (Oxley,1998; Pearson, 2007; UNESCO, 2008; Murphy et al., 2009; Baileyand Flemming, 2008; Maarleveld, 2009; Howard, 2012). In addi-tion, within the natural dimension as a control group of ICZM, thereare indicators for assessing natural factors, and balancing amongpreservation and use of natural and cultural resources. These kindsof studies and perceptions result in more multi-disciplinary pro-jects, such as SPLASHCOS (Submerged Prehistoric Landscape of theContinental Shelf, 2009e2013) and SEARCH (Archaeological Heri-tage in the North Sea, 2013-1016) which benefit of the participationof multiple groups of experts and people. Given the internationaldimension of most of the disputes, underwater cultural heritagehas become the latest frontier of international legal debate (Frost,2004). Considering the importance of the political agenda, com-mitments in the form of policies, are critical in guaranteeing andachieving goals. Policies are set and developed by different gov-ernment bodies (Willems, 2009; Harrison, 2010). Here an over-arching policy for the coastal zones can lead to an integratedapproach in managing coastal zones. Integrated approach brings allthese different disciplines together, promotes research and en-hances resources management practice. Under the integratedmethodology, tools can be developed for heritage protection, thesame way that tools were and are developed for natural resourcesprotection and their sustainable use. Since integrated approaches



have to integrate different aspects, they have potentials for moreinter-sectorial discussions.

Fig. 1 shows a conceptual framework to include coastal culturalheritage, along with natural resources in ICZM. The goals are pro-tection, conservation and sustainable future use of all resources,considering all dimensions of integrative complexity involved.Learning from natural resource management, this model has beendeveloped and used by the present research to enhance a detailedframework for inclusion of coastal cultural heritage in ICZM, and toevaluate and define cultural resources in the coastal areas. Throughcritical analysis of previous practices, guidelines and theoreticalbackground new models and guidelines have been developedthrough the present study.

To achieve the first sub-objective of this researchdto develop anintegrative evaluation system for coastal cultural heritaged aspreviously mentioned, a close cooperation with relevant sectors,such as social, ecological and physical planning (Engelbrektsson,2008) and political authorities (Hopkins et al., 2012) is required.For this purpose, based on the integrative dimensions and controlgroups, and built upon the knowledge gained from previous studiesand experiences, a systematic evaluation methodology will bedeveloped for each dimension.

To address the second objective of this researchddelineationof the cultural aread and facilitating defining the boundaries ofcoastal cultural heritage, a tool will be developed. The purpose ofthis tool, which will be called coastal cultural middle-ground, isto highlight necessary criteria to determine a zone which en-compasses the coastal cultural heritage assets respecting theirlinks and values. With inclusion of this zone into MSP, manage-ment of coastal cultural heritage as resource in ICZM will befacilitated.

Fig. 1. This conceptual scheme shows a framework for including natural and cultural resourexperiences from natural resource management, the model of integrative complexity has bebased on each discipline. A process that is flexible and considers a balanced approach for ebenefit of maximum stakeholders.


4. Results: developing models and elaborating tools

Following the conceptual scheme of natural and cultural re-sources management and learning from natural resources man-agement, a flowchart [Fig. 2] has been developed. This flowchartshows the process of identification and evaluation of coastal cul-tural heritage to justify its values as a resource for policy makingand inclusion in ICZM. The two stages of this process are the pre-paratory stages to evaluate the significance of coastal cultural re-sources. The first stage consists of defining, interpreting andevaluating coastal cultural heritage based on endogenous heritagevalues (Khakzad, 2014). This is the stage that cultural heritagespecialists (including archaeologists, historians, etc.) deal with inorder to define and evaluate cultural heritage assets though heri-tage criteria. The second stage is where these assets should be in-tegrated into ICZM. This is the stage that the present researchemphasizes on. In line with the purpose of this stage, a model forintegrative evaluation and a system for delineating coastal culturalarea, considering multiple dimensions and different factors hasbeen developed.

4.1. Integrative evaluation tool

As cultural resources and heritage management need to beincorporated within holistic planning processes, rather than oper-ating on their own as isolated entities (Tengberg et al., 2012), closecooperation with relevant sectors, such as social, ecological andphysical planning (Engelbrektsson, 2008) and political authorities(Hopkins et al., 2012) is needed. Study of the way natural resourcesdeal with this, show that a systematic evaluation through thementioned dimensions can improve the management schemes

ces in ICZM with the aim for conservation and protection of these resources. Followingen adapted. The possible factors to be addressed for each dimension should be includedvaluation of resources will guarantee sustainable use of most of the resources for the


Fig. 2. The process of including coastal cultural heritage in integrated coastal zone management policies.


(Hopkins and Bailley, 2013; Hopkins et al., 2012). Therefor it isproposed that a similar system, with some adjustment, can beused to enhance our understanding of the impacts of sectorialor integrated coastal policies (Scottish Executive CentralResearch Unit, 2001) for managing coastal cultural heritage. Thisrequires the development of a series of indicators in order to assesscultural resources within and under the influence of differentdimensions.

Coastal cultural heritage in the light of multiple dimensionsAs mentioned before the “integrative complexity model” has

been adapted by the present study. In this model natural/envi-ronmental, social, economic and political dimensions has control-ling effect on coastal cultural heritage management, and therefore,indicators and criteria have been developed for assessing theseeffects as follows:

A. Natural-environmental dimension. The natural-environmentaldimension, influences the state of heritage (Murphy et al., 2009;Bailey and Flemming, 2008; UNESCO, 2008; Pearson, 2007). As aresource nature,may sometimes compete for cultural heritage assets.The distinction between cultural and natural values is often sepa-rated formanagement purposes, but in reality it has beenproven thatthey are interwoven. Thus, considering nature and culture, both aselements that provide resources and are part of ecosystem services,that shape cultural landscapes (UNESCO, 2012), a unified strategythat creates a balance between evaluation of natural and culturalresources will benefit management of resources (Marine ProtectedAreas, 2011). Two factors are crucial in assessing the impact of na-ture on cultural heritage sites: 1) The location and character of thesite within the natural (geological and ecological) landscape; and 2)


The sensitivity and vulnerability of that natural landscape to process-driven geomorphologic change (Howard, 2012).

In the natural and environmental dimension, the indicatorswhich control the state of heritage integrity in coastal cultural areasbelong to two categories: 1) Indicators that control the level oferosion and destruction of heritage, and 2) Indicators that controlthe level of protection of sites and other heritage resources bynatural factors. These indicators are considered to develop thecultural-natural assessment system. A variety of factors, such asecological factors (Ferrari, 1990; Oxley, 1998), geomorphologicalfactors (Lambeck et al., 2004; Bailey and Sakellariou, 2012; McVeyand Erlandson, 2012), as well as environmental factors (moreanthropogenic effects such as urban and industrial development)are involved in formulating these indicators. These indicators helpto understand how natural/environmental factors impact theintegrity, preservation and protection of sites.

For this purpose, firstly, the amount and state of cultural heri-tage in coastal areas, which can be on-land, underwater and in thetransitional area, should be mapped. In the second stage, theimpact of different natural and environmental factors on heritagepreservation and protection should be evaluated through usingscientific models and different scenarios of wind, erosion,biofouling coverage, etc. Specific questions should be formulated byexperts in the field of cultural heritage and natural-environmentalsciences in order to address concerns from both sides when plan-ning the management scheme. Nature and environment havecontrolling roles on heritage management in terms of what can bepreserved, how it can be preserved, andwhat are the potentials andthreats. Furthermore, nature, as a factor in formation of the contextof cultural heritage, can be an element that creates a balance be-tween cultural heritage and natural resources preservation and use.



B. Social dimension. The social dimension relates to concepts suchas human, social, and intellectual capital. Here, all the notions ofhuman inter-connectedness with their environment, sense of placeattachment, and identity are evolved. The relation that people havewith sea, land, and the products arising from these relationships arethe cultural heritage resources that form the integrative part ofICZM and help in the understanding of the social values of heritage,as well as factors that control preservation and management ofcultural heritage within social dimension. In the social dimension,in brief, the non-material benefits people obtain from heritageassets occur through spiritual enrichment; cognitive, emotionaland social development; reflection; recreation; and aesthetic ex-periences (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2015; FAROConvention, 2005).

The connection between people with the sea and ocean hassocial aspects in relation to cultural exchange, social/culturalmemory formation (Nora, 1996, 1989; Connerton, 1989), and thelink among different people in different parts of the world. In manyparts of the world, the coastal areas have played a leading role inshaping the cultural features of countries and regions, and havebeen considered as cultural identity of certain communities(Krakow Charter, 2000; Cristinelli, 2002). Therefore, including hu-man dimension in heritage value assessment merits specialattention (Vallega, 2003). Underwater and coastal heritage as a partof common cultural heritage has social dimensions and societalvalues either it is a shipwreck or submerged site and ruin (Pinderand Vallega, 2003). Therefore, an understanding of the role thatcoastal cultural heritage plays in people well-being, sense of placeattachment, memory and identity is necessary (Farnum et al., 2005;Holloway and Hubbard, 2001; Kaltenborn, 1998).

Studies on social dimension and relation between people andthe coastal areas help to shape a series of indicators and criteria forevaluation of the links between heritage and society. The indicatorsthat help to understand how social factors impact the integrity,preservation and protection of the heritage sites concern withlinkage, connection and relationship between people, their heritageand their environment. Some indicators have been developed here,and include, but not limited to.

� Level of linkage between people and built heritage;� Level of linkage between people and intangible heritage;� People's memory of the past;� Link and relationship among the heritage assets in people'sperception; and

� The level in which a certain heritage is considered commonamong individuals, communities, or a nation, etc.

The relation that people have with sea, land, and the productsform part of social values of coastal cultural heritage and are inte-grative part of ICZM. These values influence preservation andmanagement of cultural heritage within the social dimension. Thesocial dimension has two sides: one is perception of the publictowards heritage as they value their own heritage (Plieninger et al.,2004). The second is public awareness through direct experience ofa place while encouraging people to reflect on the value of heritage.Both sides are essential in holistic management of coastal culturalheritage.

In managing the cultural coastline where residential areas suchas cities, towns and ports are located, the main issue is to investi-gate if and how the archaeological remains bear any values for thelocal people. These values can result in tangible and intangiblebenefits for people. On one hand, tangible benefits can be realizedthrough immediate income for the communities through industrialdevelopment, urbanization and providing infrastructure. Some ofthese benefits can be realized in the long term through cultural


heritage protection by tourism development, research promotion,and attaining more attention to the areas with protected and well-treated cultural coastlines.

C. Economic dimension. Studying past efforts to value and protectecosystem services shows that more research is needed on devel-oping non-monetary methods for valuing cultural ecosystem ser-vices and incorporating these into easy-to-use tools (Daily et al.,2009). It can easily be argued that coastal cultural heritage andmaritime landscapes are part of the cultural heritage of humankindand can be considered as intellectual capital. Although no economicproduction is considered here, sustainable preservation of theselandscapes is often based on developing new functions that haveeconomic significance. These functions include but are not limitedto tourism, education, reuse (Rizzo and Mignosa, 2013), or simplyenhancing the present situation of traditional activities.

Although recognizing and understanding different factors,influencing and influenced by economics, is a prerequisite forimproving the chances of translating potential heritage gains intoeffective resources management plans (Pinder and Vallega, 2003;Throsby, 2005; Daily et al., 2009) “classical economics” does notcover all ways of managing assets. Since cultural heritage encom-pass both market values and non-market values, through applica-tion of modern and ecological economics, benefits and valuesshould be assessed in the both forms of market (monetary) andnon-market values. Classical economic is based on the marketvalues and use values (Blaug, 1987), that. In classical economic,values are assessed through methods of monetary Cost-Benefitanalysis. More recently ecological economics has developed waysto for assess natural assets (Xepapadeas, 2008; Røpke, 2004), theytry to evaluate non-market values and non-monetary values ofresources through amongst others, methods as choice modeling,contingent analysis. These methods have been adaptable for cul-tural resources, considering that many values that are associatedwith cultural heritage are non-monetary/non-market values. Inaddition, an item of cultural capital can be defined as an asset thatembodies or gives rise to cultural value in addition to whatevereconomic value it might possess (Throsby, 2005). A well-definedconcept of cultural capital, with a clear delineation of its values incultural and economic terms, could assist in sharpening the policyarticulation process, especially in the heritage area (Kaltenborn,1998). UNESCO has aimed at developing a set of indicators forevaluation that will be of relevance to measuring stocks of culturalcapital and flow of the services they provide (UNESCO, 1998).Through proper valuation, a set of different economic indicators forassessing coastal cultural heritage can be developed. Economicindicators control the integrity of the sites and the preservation/loss of heritage though the effects of assessing benefits. These in-dicators can be used to compare different values not only amongdifferent heritage assets, but also among cultural resources andother resources in coastlines. In order to justify the value of coastalcultural heritage as a resource in ICZM, these indicators for evalu-ation of cultural resources assist to understand the benefit ofpreservation of coastal cultural heritage in the framework of ICZM.

D. Political dimension. Political dimension influences policies andmanagement strategies (O'Hagan and Ballinger, 2009).

Without drawing in the political dimension of culture, it isimpossible to understand the contemporary cultures and todetermine the scope of the significance of cultural assets (Baig,2002). In order to create a balance between different stake-holders' expectations and preservation of heritage values, there is aneed for policies that aim at connecting heritage conservation tocommunity planning, as well as addressing the political concerns(Greenfeld, 1997). These policies should consider numerous issues



in land-use and sea-use with respect to economic and social pol-icies (Duxbury and Jeannotte, 2010; Scriven, 1991). In planning andregulating resources which are performed at different politicallevel, one aspect is a well-informed group of legislators who deignthe legislation based on scientific data.

In the coastal areas, the separation of regulatory regimes for on-land and underwater heritage has caused inconsistency in man-agement of coastal cultural heritage. Since, integrated approachesof ICZM andMSP have looked into linking sea and land approaches,and have already been considered as an acceptedmethodology, it isplausible to explore management possibilities of coastal culturalheritage within their frameworks in order to harmonize manage-ment approaches for land based and underwater cultural heritage.Nonetheless, policies and regulations are shaped according to thepolitical agenda, in addition to the inputs from the scientists as wellas considering people's needs. Although scientists do not havedirect power to change the regulation, the outcomes of their

Fig. 3. Shows an integrative framework for evaluation of coastal cultural heritage, and assedimension, different potential sectors might be engaged in evaluation and assessment of resocultural heritage on land, underwater and in in-between space, needs to be operationalizedFig. 2. In the second step, cultural resources will be assessed within each dimension and tperformed in an interdisciplinary way, integrating different disciplines and sectors involvhorizontal and vertical in order to enable dialogues among different levels in a way to createall dimensions while evaluating all resources in a balanced way.


research have great influence on policymakers' decision making. Inorder to avoid erasing heritage assets as intrinsic part of the com-posite coastal regions, in parochial politics, policies and strategiesshould be developed as a result of understanding of the legal re-strictions as well as management purposes based on scientific in-formation (Maarleveled, 2012: 420). Following scientificjustifications, and as a result of collaboration and creating a com-mon ground among scientists and politicians, on one hand previouslegal instruments should be adjusted or new ones should beadopted; and on the other hand management strategies can beattuned.

Following exploring the role of different dimensions in coastalcultural heritage management, the model in Fig. 3 has beendeveloped for assessing coastal cultural heritage within the fourdimensions of integrative complexity theory. This flowchart aims toinclude the relevant evaluation indicators for these four di-mensions and to address the critical concerns from different

ssment of the impact of different in relation to cultural heritage management. In eachurces. The first section of this scheme that deals with defining the amount and state ofprior to integrative evaluation. That is the first step that has already been mentioned inhe impact of each dimension as control group will be evaluated. This task need to beed. In addition, for the policy making, the integration among sectors should be botha common ground between each dimension and cultural dimension, as well as among



disciplines. According to the present study, this model is suggestedto be used in concurrence of experts from different disciplines withthe aim to come to a common ground about the significant andstate of coastal cultural heritage in ICZM.

4.2. Process of defining the cultural coastal area

The dilemma in defining the coastal cultural area highlights theimportance of the integrative complexity dimensions (natural/environmental, social, economic and political) in controlling deci-sion making in the coastal areas, and also cultural factors beyondthose four dimensions. This area is an area between the sea andland, or more precisely, it is a common area that encompassescultural values on land and in sea, either underwater or above thesurface. The cultural coastal areas and the in-between space with acirculation system of people, ideas and artefact (Gosden, 2004;Murray, 2004) in time and space, can benefit from a cultural, so-cial and political equilibrium to create a ground for more consid-erate decision making. The in-between space which has beencreated through separation of land and sea by different legal andpolitical boundaries, as well as natural phenomenon, is by nomeans a fixed line or space. On the contrary, this a space to create amiddle-ground for linking sea and land management strategies, forregulating cultural heritage in sea and on land, and to better un-derstand the social interaction and connection of people with thesea and land, not only in present time, but also in the past. Inaddition, the boundaries of a resource define the extent of the areawhere that resource can reflect its significance. These boundariesare considered as a protective measure for preservation and use ofthat resource, and determine the spatial scope of the resource (e.g.a coastal cultural heritage.)

The in-between space is a part of landscape, where the clashbetween the sea and land happens in different forms; confrontationof two natural entities of water and land; the differentiation be-tween the regulatory regimes; conflict of interest in the use and/orpreservation of resources. Through creating a cultural coastalmiddle ground, which encompasses cultural values of land and sea,this study aims at a harmonious approach for smoothing the clashand to offer a unified zone to bemanaged in holistic way, respectingit as a link, and not a separating entity between the sea and land.

The first step in the construction of a general spatial frameworkis to map and to compare the scattered and incomplete informationwhich is available from the remnants of the cultural assets-including both the intangible and intangible heritage of commu-nities and people. In this spatial framework several factors of re-lationships and links are important. These factors relate to the

Fig. 4. Illustrates the linkage that people can have with their environment and heritage. Thiscontact with them. Or it can be a kind of intangible linkage, such as memory of the past ounderwater). Also the visual contact with the sea and from the sea to land creates linkage asand landscape. Through social studies two main types of contacts have been recognized fo

1. Past and present contact with the sea has been through people interaction, use of re2. Present contact with the past which is through traditions and places. These would le


connection that people make (and made) with their environmentover time and include linkage between people and their heritageand environment, encompassing seascape, seabed scape andlandscape all together in the whole context. The natural, culturaland social aspects of seascape and landscape helps planners,managers, and the cultural heritage specialists to understand thelinks among sea, land and people better. These aspects define thevariation in the types of activity, communication, and movementthat characterize different zones from the shore out to the open sea(Breen and Rigby, 1994, Breen and Lane, 2003). The context of aheritage asset should be used to describe any relationship betweenthat asset and other heritage assets, which are relevant to its sig-nificance. These relationships can be cultural, intellectual, spatial orfunctional (English Heritage, 2008). The scheme in Fig. 4 showshow the mentioned elements and factors can be related, even ifthey are not visible from one or different angles.

Following the steps of mapping the heritage and recognizing therelationships between the tangible and intangible heritage andevaluation of the cultural entities, here four main steps are sug-gested to be followed:

1 To recognize the main cultural zones. These zones, related to aspecific history, event, value, etc. have to be superimposed uponnatural and environmental resources' zones. Thus, this allowshighlighting the core zones and their relation to each other, inaddition to the relation between smaller landscape, seabedscape and seascape units to form larger cultural-natural area.

2 Each cultural heritage unit should be described in a systematicway using characteristics of their actual and past situation. Thisstep is to group and evaluate coastal cultural heritage accordingto their period of development and mutual relations in evolu-tion. The grouping and evaluation is not only horizontal, basedon what we can see on the surface, but also vertical, based onour knowledge of what exist beneath the water, sand and earth,and also what people know and feel. Thus, the coherence of thecultural heritage can be evaluated in a certain area, and itsextension in the sea and on land can be assessed.

3 The third step consists in the formulation of ideal models ordescriptions of a specific coastal cultural area from one period orseveral periods, which encompass the maximum heritagevalues. The ideal area is where a common sense throughknowledge and feeling might exist. The ideal area includes thecultural items that might have existed in the past and that aregone now but are historical, scientific or/and social evidences.

4 The fourth step is the evaluation of the actual area compared tothe ideal descriptionor/model that has been formulated in step 3.

linkage can be tangible meaning that people can easily see them, or use them and be inr an imaginary perception of the existence of something (e.g. a shipwreck or a townwell. There are several types of contact between people and sea; or between seascaper defining the coastal cultural heritage area.

sources, and connection among places.ad to memories, identities and sense of place attachment.


Fig. 5. Schematic illustration of defining a coastal cultural middle ground based on the links and connections among different elements. The circular lines here give an idea of howthe common ground can be defined, encompassing the maximum amount of heritage values. However, the circles can include one area more or less, and not always follow a regularshape. All depends on the extent of existence of the tangible and intangible heritage.


Both areasdideal model and the actual areadwill be analyzed.The actual areas are the core zones and where values of heritageare evident. However the ideal model areas consist of theintangible links and peripheral zones where heritage values areforeseen to exist. In the analyses, in the final step, the social,natural and economic aspects will be considered and a plausiblearea will be suggested to be regulated as coastal cultural area.

Fig. 5 summarizes four mentioned steps, and shows thedifferent linkages and connections. It shows how these connections

Fig. 6. Filling the Natural-Environmental Dimens


can help identifying a common ground that includes the maximumcultural values.

In formation of coastal cultural middle ground, connectionsamong cultural entities can be in physical, social and economicforms. The physical connections exist among the remains of cul-tural and archaeological remains. These connections can be in thesurface among the buildings and remains such as ports, ships,shipwrecks, etc. in the landscape and seascape, and/or amongdifferent layers of archaeological remains from prehistory to pre-sent time. The social connections are mostly recognized through

ion scheme with existing and needed data.


Fig. 7. This scheme shows some existing data and suggested social studies on the relation between people and coastal heritage. Through social studies the links between people andtheir heritage can be highlighted.


intangible aspects, such as people memories of the past events orknowledge of existing archaeological remains in the sea or on land,in addition to traditional activities which shapes people's sense ofplace attachment and identity. Economic connection can be iden-tified through long lasting activities such as trade, fishing, portactivities, etc. among different people and different places. Theextent of this area and defining it all depends on the links andconnections among different factors.

5. Case study: Ostend area, Belgium

The purpose of this section is to examine the models andguidelines that have been developed in the present research for theBelgian coast.

5.1. Overview

The Belgian coastal area is characterized by its typical socialenvironment, with a high population density, a large ageing pop-ulation, a high amount of second homes and high house prices(Coudenys et al., 2013). Furthermore, the coast constitutes a specificregion from an economic perspective (Breyne et al., 2007; Maelfaitet al., 2012). Belgium has long recognized that there is an urgentneed to integrate both land and sea planning and tomake full use of


public participation processes in this integration (Bogaert andMaes, 2008). However, Belgium has a complicated political andjuridical system. Belgium is a federal kingdom with three regions,only one of which, Vlaanderen (Flanders) is coastal. Vlaanderen isin charge of spatial and environmental planning, but the federalgovernment has jurisdiction over natural (except for fishery) andcultural resources in the North Sea. So in first glance there iscomplication in adapting a harmonized management strategy forthe coastal cultural heritage. In addition, for a long time the seacoast has been the domain for sectorial planning mainly servingtourism and recreation (Committee on Coastal Erosion ZoneManagement, 1990). Due to the small length of the sea coast(~65 km) and heavy population pressures most of the sea coastbecame urbanized.

Acknowledging the value of coastal cultural heritage and theimportance of an interdisciplinary approach for study and man-agement of coastal cultural heritage, the Flanders Heritage Agencytogether with several partnersdUniversity of Ghent, VLIZ (FlandersMarine Institute), Deltares (Department of Geology and Geo-physics)dis running a four year project (2013e2016) entitled‘Archaeological Heritage in the North Sea’ or ‘SEARCH’ (Sea-arch.be,. 2015). The IWT project “Archaeology in the North Sea e

Development of an efficient evaluation method and proposals forsustainable management in Belgium” attempt to develop a reliable


Fig. 8. Shows the two economic evaluation methods that should be performed for coastal cultural heritage in order to understand the market-values and non-market values ofcoastal cultural heritage. The ecological economics methodologies such as contingency method and choice modeling can be adapted for this purpose.


research methodology for efficient evaluation of the archaeologicalpotential of marine areas, and on the preparation of a proper legalframework and clear policy for protection of underwater andcoastal cultural heritage, without standing in the way of necessaryeconomic exploitation of the North Sea. This project will beexplained later in this chapter.

In Belgium coastal cultural heritage has been divided intoseveral groups and each receives its own attention(Compendiumkustenzee.be, 2015). The geographical position of themaritime heritage (including shipwrecks and underwater culturalheritage) in marine areas is included in a number of databases(Maritieme-archeologie.be, 2015; Wrecksite.eu, 2015). Another setof coastal heritage is the architectural heritage in the coastal areawith their geographical location (Geo.onroerenderfgoed.be, 2015).The other set is landscapes with heritage values; the new geo-portal of the Flemish Heritage Agency provides an overview ofthe locations of these landscapes (Geo.onroerenderfgoed.be, 2015).In addition, there are also intangible heritage related to the coastalactivities (For the moment, two items are specific to the coast: theCarnival of Blankenberge and horseback shrimp fishing in Kok-sijde). However, as far as maritime heritage is concerned, it is notevident to claim specific marine space for the purpose of maritimeheritage preservation and it gets attention only when underwaterheritage has to disappear for compelling reasons (Pieters et al.,2013).

In general no management system exists in Belgium exclusivelyfor archaeological and other heritage in the marine area. Infra-structural and commercial activities such as dredging, windmillfarms, aggregate extraction and pipelines, also coastal protectionworks, already occupy a very large part of the North Sea and nearshore area, and are in general carried out without any systematicscheme and built on consideration for the marine archaeologicalheritage (Garbutt, 2005; OSPAR, 2009; Van Haelst et al., 2014).However, there have been several national and multi-lateral


projects concerning studying and management of underwater andcoastal cultural heritage in Belgium initiated and awealth of data isavailable.

5.2. Workability of the method

There is a great amount of data available on different aspects ofthe coastal areas in Belgium such as ecology, geomorphology, andcultural heritage and so forth. Although, these data were not spe-cifically collected for the purpose of coastal cultural heritagemanagement and there are many gaps in our knowledge and data,the current data were, nevertheless, useful for conducting an in-tegrated evaluation, as well as creating scenarios for coastal culturalmiddle ground.

In consultation with Belgium Regional Cooperation Coast, thefeasibility of adapting the integrative evaluation tool and creating acoastal cultural middle-ground, which were developed through thepresent research, were discussed for Belgium coastal area, andwereexamined specifically for the Ostend area. The results are fulfillingparts of the SEARCH objectives and are briefly presented. In thefollowing paragraphs reference to available data but also to the lackof data is given. The research outcome also aims at pointing to thelatter so at the long run a proper management can be developedwhich balances the variety of interests.

5.2.1. Integrative evaluation of Ostend areaWith respect to the integrated evaluation tool and its integrated

dimensions, the existing knowledge about the Belgian coastal areain Ostend were collected and fed into the models for evaluation.

5.2.1.1. Natural-environmental dimension. In respect to the naturaldimension, combined natural-cultural criteria can be used to assessthe state of coastal cultural heritage. Currently, the natural signif-icant areas in Belgium are protected under the: Flemish recognized


Fig. 9. The impact of each indicator in relation to protection, preservation, integration and future of the coastal cultural heritage should be assessed through the existing regulatoryregimes. This assessment will help to understand what elements have been covered, and if there is any harmonized protection law, policy, program, etc. are in place to benefit fromfor the protection of coastal cultural heritage. Considering different level of governance in Belgium, in addition to the international and European conventions that are ratifies byBelgium, there are potentials for a harmonized management strategy for land-sea cultural heritage. This is in line with ICZM strategy of linking sea-land resources managementapproaches.


nature reserves, bird conservation areas protected under the BirdsDirective, Habitat Directive, wetlands conservation areas protectedunder the Ramsar Convention, areas protected by the dunes decreeand VEN-areas (Flemish ecological network).

A better knowledge of marine (pre)historic environment andthe development of (pre)historic coastlines which improve ourunderstanding of the present-day changes in the coastal/nearshorearea related to sea level rise and climate change is crucial for coastalmanagement planning (Van den Eynde, 2011; Van den Eynde et al.,2009, 2008; Belspo.be, 2015). There are some data available onshipwrecks which were the target of ecological studies for naturepreservation (Vliz.be, 2015; Pieters, 2006), coastal defense struc-tures, natural factors (SLR, storm, etc.). Considerable amount ofinformation on the complex geological layering of the OstendValley and acquiring data about the existence of (pre)historiclandscape, shipwrecks and other archaeological potential were


collected through SEARCH project. Existing data were fed into theintegrative evaluation model in Fig. 6, and the potentials and gapsfor management of cultural-natural heritage have been identified.

5.2.1.2. Social dimension. In the social dimension, the values ofcultural heritage in relation to the communities, public and anyother users should be assessed. There is an extensive urban andindustrial development in the coastal areas of Belgium. Therefore,identifying different local and traditional coastal communities andtheir relationships with their natural and built environment isessential. In the RSV (Flemish Spatial Structure Plan), the coast isregarded as an urban network and a touristic, recreational network(Coudenys et al., 2013).

Social values regarding coastal cultural encompass, but notlimited to, intangible heritage related to World Wars (WW)(memories, national pride, etc.), social employment at traditional


Fig. 10. Shipwrecks, cultural and archaeological sites are projected on the geological map. The habitat protected areas and shipwrecks biological hotspots are positioned. Theprotection umbrella for nature can be extended for heritage sites as well. This can justify a stronger protection zone for management of cultural-natural resources. The red circleshows the Ostend area. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)


shipbuilding projects, traditional fishing including horse-backshrimping, and local knowledge about fishing through LECOFish,which contribute to the sense of place and identity. The existinginformation has been used in the present research for evaluation ofthe social aspects of coastal cultural heritage in Ostend. Followingthe analysis, the results for Ostend are presented in Fig. 7.

However, a thorough interdisciplinary study is needed to assessthe state of coastal cultural heritage within the social dimensionwith collaboration both social scientists and cultural heritage spe-cialists to identify links and connections that people maintain withtheir heritage in forms of place attachment, identity and culturalmemory.

5.2.1.3. Economic dimension. In the economic dimension, thecrucial debate is to assure a balance between the non-use values(non-market values) and the used-values (monetary) values.Different stakeholders have major roles in final management plansand decisions making. In the Belgium case, since the heritagepreservation might be in conflict with developmental activities(dredging, windmill farms, etc.), a value assessment that considersthe both mentioned values with the aim of benefiting from coastalresources in the best possible way is necessary.

Different studies show that cultural heritage has brought eco-nomic benefit to people in direct, indirect and induced ways in theFlemish Region (De Baerdemaeker et al., 2011) and in the coastalareas (Maelfait et al., 2012). In some cases, heritage related activ-ities, in addition to cultural tourism, can bring socioeconomicbenefit to people. For instance, in a number of historic shipyards,social employment projects are developed in Belgium (Pieters et al.,2013).

Considering the integrated evaluation model, different eco-nomic data still need to be collected and use in the integrativeevaluating scheme. Economic data should include evaluation ofcoastal cultural heritage through classical economics as well as


ecological economics in order to assess market values and non-market values of coastal cultural heritage in a balanced way. Theexisting relevant economic data on Ostend area were used in theintegrative evaluation model and the results are shown in Fig. 8.

5.2.1.4. Political dimension. Due to the complicated political systemin Belgium, The analysis confirmed that the complicated politicalsystem in Belgium leads to the separation of authority over landand sea which has a detrimental impact on the development ofmanagement strategies for coastal cultural heritage protection. It ispartially responsible for excluding cultural heritage from ICZM.Therefore, looking into possibilities of regulating the coastal cul-tural middle-ground, as a unified entity, needs to be explored bylaw experts.

Although a “Cooperation Agreement” exists since 2004 thatmanages the archaeological heritage of the North Sea over differentpolitical regimes -from the federal state of Belgium to the Region ofFlanders-, this agreement never entered into force (Deweirdt, n.d.).However, the initiative for creating such agreement shows thatthere are possibilities of collaborative approaches for coastal cul-tural heritage management between different levels of govern-ment. Considering the integrated evaluation model, differentpolitical factors from different level of governance need to be un-derstood in order to explore the best way to regulate managementstrategies and actions regarding coastal cultural heritage. Fig. 9shows some of the indicators that should be assessed within theexisting political dimension respecting international, national andlocal systems. With the aims of protection, preservation, integra-tion and sustainable future use, the workability of the existing legalsystem and policies can be assessed. From the analysis of existingregulations, it was concluded that a regional or provincial regula-tory regime for integrated coastal cultural heritage managementcan reduce conflict among the municipalities, enhancing the inte-grated approach for the whole Belgian coastal zone.


Fig. 11. Superposition of several layers of data including heritage assets, geology, cultural landscape, flood zones, coastal protection, etc. resulted in creation of this map. The redcircle is the Ostend area with illustration of some of its historical and monumental sites on and underwater. The arrows shows some terrestrial heritage and blue triangles in the sea

show the location of shipwrecks. Predicted Flood zones, Nature protected zones, Protected landscape, Parts of Ostend Valleys, Beach nourishment, Protected

beach dunes, Coastal protection (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)


5.2.2. The feasibility of coastal cultural middle ground of Ostendarea

Considering the number of historically important shipwrecks,archaeological and historical sites on land and underwater in thisarea, vicinity with natural protected area and shipwreck biologicalhotspot, and the scientific importance of the Ostend Valley, there ispotential to define a coastal cultural-natural zone, which can beused for the integrated management of coastal cultural heritage inOstend.

In view of Belgium different governmental bodies for regulatingland and sea, defining a zone as coastal cultural middle ground willassist in creating a policy for a unified approach to regulate coastalheritage, which is crucial for preservation of the maximum valuesof this heritage. Conversely, due to the dominance of develop-mental activities, economic benefit of industrial progresses, smallcoastal domain and conflicting interests, it is difficult to justify theimportance of allocating exclusive areas for heritage protection inthe Belgian coastal area. However, the existing knowledge ondifferent values of resources, combined with benefiting from thenatural preservation directives and regulation for protection ofboth natural and cultural resources, helps to define protected areas,encompassing cultural values along with natural values. This iscrucial for protection of coastal cultural heritage in Belgium, sincein the present situation defining separate cultural zones is notsupported by the new MSP in Belgium.

Some data (e.g. data about biofouling, location of defensestructures, etc.) has been used here for evaluation of coastal culturalheritage. Furthermore, the current MSP in Belgium Part of theNorth Sea and also “Strategic plan for the Harbor” (Gysens et al.,2011), “the Master plan for Oosteroever” (Global Master Plan,2012), the Spatial Plan for Oostende, and similar plans, can beused along with coastal cultural heritage data to assess the state ofcultural heritage in the Ostend coastal area. Relevant data from theprevious cultural and natural studies, as well as the natural pro-tected area (Habitat Directive, Protected Sandbanks and CON-DEMIUM) (BelgiumMSP Brochure, 2014; Health.belgium.be, 2015),shipwrecks (Maritieme-archeologie.be, 2015) are projected on themap of geological survey on the Ostend Valley (De Clercq et al.,


2014) [Fig. 10]. Superimposing these data, as the first step, showsthe location of protected natural habitat as well as some knowncoastal cultural heritage.

In a second step, a more sophisticated superposition of data anddifferent layers has been applied [Fig. 11].

In the Ostend coastal area, around the harbor, different themesof cultural heritage elements related to maritime heritage, sea-warheritage, trade and so forth can be observed. Some have memorialcomponent (e.g. National Mariners Monument), some more heri-tage and historical values (e.g. Fort Napeleon), and some traditionaland social values (e.g. traditional shipyard). Some are active heri-tage involving people's everyday work, and some more touristyaspects. The entire area reflects a long living tradition of connectionof people with the sea, and every element is a cruitial component toillustrate and preserve the integrity of this image. Superimposingsome of the available data helped shaping a few scenarios for acoastal cultural middle ground in Ostend [Figs. 12 and 13].

In addition, the role of stakeholders in supporting coastal cul-tural middle ground is crucial. From the experiences of natureprotection (Cliquet et al., 2007), it can be learned that protection oflarge areas with restricted rules arises opposition of many stake-holders. Although the protection of heritage is important, the aimof the coastal cultural middle ground is not to create a dead heri-tage zone. The ultimate goal is to allow for the traditional and localactivities, such as fishing and boat building, to continue their pro-fession, however with awareness of existing coastal cultural heri-tage. Some restriction in activities such as fishing and trawlingaround the shipwreck is recommended. Control on development inthe shoreline and in the vicinity of historical building and culturallandscape is necessary in order to prevent damages such asdestruction of historical maritime related sites and buildings (e.g.Beliard).

For delineating and regulating such an area, which covers seaand land, both Flemish and Federal Governments should be onboard. Because as mentioned before, the Federal government iscompetent for the sea and the Flemish Government has compe-tency of land. Several authorities need to be on board to makedecision for protecting and regulating such area for Ostend coastal


Fig. 12. A hypothetical scenario for Ostend Coastal Cultural Middle Ground. Heritage sites, related to maritime activities and coastal characteristics with their possible core zonesand buffer zones are highlighted. The maximum number and amount of cultural heritage sites with possible links among them are taken into account, in order to formulate culturallandscapes. Considering nature protected zones on land and underwater, as well as existing cultural landscapes, the zones are extended to encompass all heritage and culturalvalues. The purpose is to not lose the links among physical remains, in order to conserve the whole connection among buildings and sites to save the impression of unity coastalcultural area. Delineating coastal cultural middle ground that encompasses the maximum aspects of coastal cultural heritage will promote a tourism that is directed on maritimeheritage; activities such as traditional shipbuilding and restoration can be improved; traditional fishing can be showcased as a part of tourism attraction along with seafoodmarkets; and in combination with intangible heritage such as Ostend at Anchor Festival, the whole area can express its long tradition of maritime activities from past to present in astronger way. Maritime heritage trail can be set in place in order to guide tourists. This also brings more attention to the historical buildings and sites that might have beenmarginalized and are in danger of abandonment and demolition (e.g. Beliard). The two sides of the harbor are connected by ferry at the moment that can also be used for visitors

transfer from one side to the other. Shipwrecks, Hypothetical zone and buffer zones of cultural sites, including zones with concentration of sites and cultural landscape,

Hypothetical coastal cultural middle ground, Architectural relics based on Geoportal onroerenderfgoed.


cultural middle ground such as Harbor authorities, Town author-ities, Flanders Heritage agency, Agency for Nature (ANB), Afdelingkust (MDK), and Federal State for the Sea Territory. However,creating regulation to provide legal support for this area is out ofthe scope of the present research, and hopefully will be conductedby legal experts after finalizing the extent of Ostend Coastal Cul-tural Middle Ground. Within the decree of 2013 that gives possi-bilities to the Flemish Government to create areas of heritagetheme there are more potentials to define a boundaries for coastalcultural heritage protection andmanagement. However, the coastalcultural middle-ground covers sea as well, which is not the com-petency of the Flemish Government. Therefore, the presentresearch suggests exploring the possibilities of creating an act toprotect coastal cultural middle ground in the Belgian coastal areas.Through this research, it was suggested creating Coastal CulturalMiddle Ground Act for the Belgium Part of the North Sea. The aim of


this act would not be only to define the boundaries of a protectedzone for coastal cultural heritage, but also to bring different level ofauthorities and sectors together to acknowledge the value ofcoastal cultural heritage as a component of the coastal areas. Sincethe coast is now regulated through regions, for Ostend area, oneoption is to use an amendment of the Special Act of 8 August 1980on the reform of institutions. According to this amendment it ispossible for the Federal government to transfer certain compe-tences to the level of the Communities and Regions. Example of useof such amendment can be seen in the past fishery at sea (Somersand Maes, 2011). In addition to this amendment, it is also possiblefor the Federal Government and the Flemish Government, toconclude a collaboration agreement on certain topics under article92 bis x1 of the 1980 reform law (Deweirdt, 2006). Learning fromnature protection with the same complexity for protection of nat-ural resources on land and in the sea (Cliquet et al., 2004; Cliquet,


Fig. 13. Final hypothetical scenario for Ostend Coastal Cultural Middle Ground. Shipwrecks, Hypothetical zone and buffer zones of cultural sites, including zones with

concentration of sites and cultural landscape, Hypothetical coastal cultural middle ground, Architectural relics based on Geoportal onroerenderfgoed.


2001), (e.g. protection of nature in the west coast and Heist), thecoastal cultural middle ground can be regulated by the two relevantauthorities: Federal and Flemish, however though a unified strat-egy for management. In addition, it is also possible to benefit fromseveral existing protection and management tools such as the onesfor nature and culture together to create a more robust protectionstrategy for sustainable preservation of the natural-cultural coastalenvironment in different parts of the Belgian coast.

6. Conclusion

This study suggests that for a more appropriate management ofcoastal cultural heritage, through a broader justification of valuesand goals is necessary to develop a policy for inclusion of coastalcultural heritage in holistic coastal management plans. Therefore,out of two general trends of heritage approach and integratedapproach formanagement of coastal cultural heritage, the latter hasconsidered to be more effective for sustainable preservation andmanagement of coastal cultural heritage.

Integrated approach for management of coastal resources ingeneral, and for management of coastal cultural heritage inparticular has the advantages of bringing variety of disciplinestogether which results in more cooperation among sectors,enhancement of knowledge and promotes the management of allresources in a balanced way in order to achieve ICZM goalsregarding sustainable development.

Acknowledging the similarities between natural resources andcultural resources, lessons from experiences on natural resourcesmanagement can be learned and results can be adapted andimproved for cultural resources in order to improve our method-ologies for evaluating, zoning and developing tools for managingcoastal cultural resources. Coastal cultural heritage can attain thesame attention of other resources and will be integrated into theholistic management plans, if assessed in interdisciplinary and in-tegrated manner. The efforts in order to include coastal culturalheritage as a resources in ICZM schemes can facilitate linking land


and sea and harmonizing management approaches for land basedand underwater cultural heritage.

A series of models and tools were created through the presentresearch. The zoning tool can play an important role in marinespatial planning for including coastal cultural heritage in integratedcoastal zone management. While, there is no universally appro-priate strategy available for managing coastal heritage sites, theevaluation models can be adopted, altered and upgraded for in-stances with different socio-economic, environmental and politicalconditions. Although, strategies, tools and techniques are usuallyselected according to local characteristics, tools availabilities andstakeholders' expectations, coastal cultural resources can benefitfrom a common ground to be better holistically managed. The newmodels for evaluating and the tool for defining and zoning thecoastal cultural heritage proposed through the present researchoffer an innovative, harmonized and at the same time flexibleapproach. This approach can be adapted for variety of cases, basedon different demands, specific conditions and control groups.

The models and methodology were applied for the specific caseof Belgian Part of the North Sea and the Ostend area. The imple-mentation of the models was briefly shown. It was concluded thatBelgium can benefit from such strategies for unifying managementapproaches towards coastal cultural heritage. However, it wasnoted that there are still gaps in our knowledge and also Belgiumneed yet to develop a strategic plan for its coastal cultural heritage.The major focus of this paper and the case study have been todevelop amethodology for integrating coastal cultural heritage intoMSP and holistic coastal management plans, rather than on theresulting plan. This methodology provided guidance while devel-oping a vision for the future of coastal cultural heritage. Due to thefact that there is no national integrated coastal management inplace for Belgium, it is expected that through following the pro-posed guidelines by all coastal municipalities, a more harmonizedsystem for management of coastal cultural heritage will be ach-ieved. Therefore, in the end, these plans will be unified and a moreintegrated management strategy will be realized.



Themethod and tools suggested through this study are new andit is the first time that this methodology is going to be tested forcoastal cultural heritage. So far, for Ostend area in Belgium, theexisting data was used and fed into the models. Nevertheless, forthese model and tool to work, more specific projects will be neededto collect missing data. More analysis should be performed throughinterviewing relevant experts and authorities in order to use themodels in a proper way. The aim of proposed methodology is tobring all experts and data together and evaluate them through aunified strategy, this is an inter-disciplinary endeavor. The pro-posed methodology is flexible and can be developed and improvedthough collaboration of different experts from different fields. It isnecessary to highlight that this type of approach is not possiblethrough a single disciplinary approach. Thus in line with ICZMgoals, not only integration among different sectors is necessary, butalso integration among different disciplines is crucial in order tojustify the multifaceted values of coastal cultural heritage.

Acknowledgment

Wewould like to appreciate the input to this paper provided by:Dr. Frank Maes and Thary Derudder (Ghent University, Belgium),Dr. Lisa Schiavinato (N.C. Coastal Resources Law, Planning, andPolicy Center, USA) and Kathy Belpaeme (Regional CooperationCoast, Belgium). Special thanks to Jossian Stottrup for advising onthe content and structure of the paper. This research benefited frompartial funding provided by IWT through the SEARCH project.

References

AIMA, Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA) Inc. and the AustralianCultural AIMA Development Office Canberra, 1994. Guidelines for the Man-agement of Australian Shipwrecks.

Baig, A., 2002. The Politics of Cultural Significance. Institute de Cultural, Macau SAR.Bailey, G.N., Flemming, N., 2008. Archaeology of the continental shelf: marine re-

sources, submerged landscapes and underwater archaeology. Quat. Sci. Rev. 27,2153e2165.

Bailey, G., Sakellariou, D., members of the SPLASHCOS network, 2012. SPLASHCOSSubmerged Prehist. Archaeol. Landsc. Cont. Shelf, Antiq. 086 (334) (December).

Bammer, G., O'Connell, D., Roughley, A., Syme, G., 2005. Integration research fornatural resource management in Australia: an introduction to new challengesfor research practice. J. Res. Pract. 1 (2).

Belgium MSP Brochure, 2014. The Brochure of a Marine Spatial Plan for the BelgianPart of the North Sea. Something Is Moving at the Sea…, a Marine Spatial Planfor the Belgian Part of the North Sea. Federal Public Service, Health, Food ChainSafety and Environment. Accessible at: A Marine Spatial Plan for the BelgianPart of the North Sea.pdf pdf, 5.08 MB (Last accessed: 18 Jan. 2014).

Blaug, M., 1987. Classical economics. New Palgrave Dict. Econ. 1, 414e445.Bogaert, D., Maes, F. (Eds.), 2008. Who Rules the Coast? Policy Processes in Belgian

MPAs and Beach Spatial Planning. MAKLU, Antwerp, p. 187.Bone, K.B., 1997. The New York Waterfront: Evolution and Buildings Culture of the

Port and Harbor. Monacelli Press, New York.Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction, a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. R. (Trn.),

Harvard, Nice.Breen, C., Lane, P., 2003. Archaeological approaches to East Africa's changing sea-

scapes. World Archaeol. 35 (3) (December).Breen, A., Rigby, D., 1994. Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge. McGraw- Hill,

New York.Breyne, P., Belpaeme, K., Lescrauwaet, A.K., Mees, J., Seys, J., 2007. West-Vlaanderen

door de zee gedreven”: Rede door Paul Breyne, Gouverneur van West-Vlaanderen uitgesproken in de provincieraad van 2 oktober 2007. Brugge,Provincie West-Vlaanderen, p. 77.

Callegari, F., Vallega, A., 2002. Coastal cultural heritage: a management tool. J. Cult.Herit. 3 (3), 227e236.

Campbell, H., 2000. Sustainable development e can the vision be realized? Plan.Theory & Pract. 1 (2), 259e284.

Cliquet, A., 2001. Coastal Zone Management in Belgium. Revue juridique de l’en-vironnement, numero sp�ecial, Am�enagement et gestion int�egr�ee des zonescoti�eres, pp. 85e106.

Cliquet, A., Maes, F., Schrijvers, J., 2004. Towards integration and participation incoastal zone decision making for Belgium. In: Green, D. (Ed.), Delivering Sus-tainable Coasts: Connecting Science and Policy, Littoral 2004, Aberdeen,September 2004, Proceedings, vol. 1. Cambridge Publications, pp. 205e210.

Cliquet, A., Bogaert, D., De Waen, D., Maes, F., 2007. The designation of Marineprotected areas in Belgium: from government to governance?. In: Proceedings


MARE Conferentie People and the Sea IV. Who Owns the Coast, Amsterdam,pp. 5e7 juli 2007.

CoE, 1999, Committee for the Activities of the Council of Europe in the Field ofBiological and Landscape Diversity, 1999. CO-DBP, 3nd Meeting, Geneva, 19April 1999, Document Established by the Secretariat General, Direction ofEnvironment and Local Authorities. Accessible at. http://www.coastalguide.org/code/cc.pdf (Accessed 02.11.13).

Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone Management, Water Science and TechnologyBoard, 1990, Marine Board, Managing Coastal Erosion.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2006. National Cooperative Approach to IntegratedCoastal Zone Management, Framework and Implementation Plan.

Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge [England].

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993. Accessible at: http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/(Last visited: 19 Jan. 2015)

Coudenys, H., Barbery, S., Depestel, N., Traen, S., Vandermeulen, A., Pirlet, H., 2013.Social and economic environment. In: Lescrauwaet, A.K., Pirlet, H., Verleye, T.,Mees, J., Herman, R. (Eds.), Compendium for Coast and Sea 2013: IntegratingKnowledge on the Socio-economic, Environmental and Institutional Aspects ofthe Coast and Sea in Flanders and Belgium. Oostende, Belgium, pp. 197e208.

Craig, R.K., 2004. Europe's network of Marine protected areas: legal and policychallenges for coastal biodiversity Protection proceedings of Littoral 2004. In:7th International Symposium. Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Sci-ence and Policy, vol. 1, pp. 170e174.

Cristinelli, G. (Ed.), 2002. The Krakow Charter 2000. Principles for the Conservationand Restoration of Built Heritage. Marsilio, Venice, 182.

Cummins, V., Ballinger, R., O'Mahony, C., Dodds, W., Smith, H., 2004a. CoastalCommunities Network. Interreg IIIA Final Report.

Cummins, V., O'Mahony, C., Connolly, N., 2004b. N.2, Review of Integrated CoastalZone Management & Principals of Best Practice. Prepared for the HeritageCouncil by the Coastal and Marine Resources Centre.

Cummins, V., O' Mahony, C., Connolly, N., 2010. Review of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement & Principals of Best Practice, Coastal and Marine ResourcesCentre. Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Ireland (NewZealand Government, New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement).

Daily, G.C., Polansky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., 2009.Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7(1), 21e28.

De Baerdemaeker, M., Vastmans, F., Vandekerckhove, B., Buyst, E., Lievevrouw, P.,2011. De sociaal-economische Impact van het onroerend erfgoed(beleid) inVlaanderen. SumResearch, Brussel.

De Clercq, M., Zurita, O.H., Chademeinos, V., Missiaen, T., 2014. OOSTENDE & IJSERValley SEISMIC Campaign, IWT SBO Project 120003 “Search”.

Deweirdt, M. (n.d.) Maritime Archaeological Heritage Legislation in Flanders/Belgium. Accessible at: http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/103197.pdf.

Deweirdt, M., 2006. Maritime archaeological heritage legislation in Flanders/Belgium (Wetgeving in verband met het maritiem archeologisch erfgoed inVlaanderen/Belgi€e). In: Pieters, M., et al. (Eds.), Colloquium: To sea or not to seae 2nd international colloquium on maritime and fluvial archaeology in thesouthern North Sea area, Brugge (Belgium), 21-23 September 2006: book ofabstracts (Colloquium: Ter zee of niet ter zee e 2de internationaal colloquiumover maritieme en fluviale archeologie in het zuidelijke Noordzeegebied,Brugge (Belgi€e), 21-23 september 2006: book of abstracts, vol. 32. VLIZ SpecialPublication, 59e61, 62e64.

Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23, July2014. establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Accessible at:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.257.01.0135.01.ENG (Last accessed: 14 Nov. 2014).

Doody, J.P., 2004. Sea cliffs a neglected European habitat? Proceedings of Littoral2004, 7th international symposium. Deliv. Sustain. Coasts Connecting Sci. Policy2, 578e584.

Douvere, F., Maes, F., Vanhulle, A., Schrijvers, J., 2007. The role of marine spatialplanning in sea use management: the Belgian case. Mar. Policy 31 (2), 182e191.

Driver, M.J., Streufert, S., 1969. Laboratory studies of experimental organizations.Adm. Sci. Q. 14 (No. 2), 272e285. Jun., 1969.

Duxbury, N., Jeannotte, M.S., 2010. Culture, sustainability and communities:exploring the myths. In: Esitelm€a pidetty: 6th International Conference onCultural Policy Research, vol. 24. No. 27.8.

Ehler, Ch, Douvere, F., 2009. Marine spatial planning. A step-by-step approach to-ward ecosystem-based management. In: Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and GuidesNo. 53, ICAM Dossier No 6. UNESCO, Paris, p. 99.

Engelbrektsson, N., 2008. Tendencies towards a shift in attitude to culturalheritageda survey. In: The International Seminar on Cultural Heritage: Use,Maintenance and Long-term Development. University of Gothenburg andChalmers University of Technology.

Farnum, J., Hall, T., Kruger, L., 2005. Sense of Place in Natural Resource Recreationand Tourism: an Evaluation and Assessment of Research Findings. USDA ForestService. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-880.

FARO Convention, 2005. Accessible at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Identities/default_en.asp (Last visited 15 Jan. 2015)

Ferrari, B., Adams, J., 1990. Biogenic modifications of marine sediments and theirinfluence on archaeological material. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 19 (2), 139e151.

Ford, B. (Ed.), 2011. Introduction, the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Springer,pp. 1e9.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0964-5691(15)00222-7/sref1






























































http://www.coastalguide.org/code/cc.pdf

http://www.coastalguide.org/code/cc.pdf





http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/

http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/



































http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/103197.pdf















http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.257.01.0135.01.ENG





























http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Identities/default_en.asp

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Identities/default_en.asp








Frost, R., 2004. Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection, 23 AUSTL. Y.B. INT’L L. 25,p. 25.

Garbutt, A., 2005. Restoration of intertidal habitats by the managed realignment ofcoastal defences, UK. In: Herrier, J.-L., Mees, J., Salman, A., Seys, J., VanNieuwenhuyse, H., Dobbelaere, I. (Eds.), Proceedings ‘Dunes and Estuaries2005’: International Conference on Nature Restoration Practices in EuropeanCoastal Habitats on 19-23 September 2005, pp. 547e555. Koksijde (Belgium).

Global Master Plan, 2012. PALMBOUT Urban Landscapes. Accessible at: http://www.oostendewerft.be/uplfile/globaal%20masterplan%20oosteroever.pdf.

Gosden, C., 2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC tothe Present, p.4. Cambridge, UK.

Graham, B., 2002. Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture? Urban Stud. 39,1003e1017.

Greenfeld, L., 1997. The political significance of culture. 4 Brown J. World Aff. 187 IV,1.

Gysens, S., De Rouck, J., Trouw, K., Bolle, A., Willems, M., 2011. Integrated coastal andmaritime plan for OostendedDesign of soft and hard coastal protection mea-sures during the EIA procedures. Coast. Eng. Proc. 1 (32) management-37.

Harrison, R., 2010. Understanding the Politics of Heritage. Manchester UniversityPress, Manchester.

Hawkins, C., 2011. Finding Blame for Environmental Outcomes. Doctoral Disserta-tion. Mass.: University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst.

Heritage, English, 2008. Conservation Principles: Policy and Guidance for the Sus-tainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage, London.

Holloway, L., Hubbard, P., 2001. People and Place: the Extraordinary Geographies ofEveryday Life. Pearson Education Limited.

Hopkins, T., Bailley, D., 2013. The role of science in the transition to sustainability:the systems approach framework for integrated coastal zone management. In:Moksness, E., Dahl, E., Stottrup, J. (Eds.), Global Challenges in Integrated CoastalZone Management.

Hopkins, T.S., Bailly, D., Elmgren, R., Glegg, G., Sandberg, A., Støttrup, J.G., 2012.A systems approach framework for the transition to sustainable development:potential value based on coastal experiments. Ecol. Soc. 17 (3), 39.

Howard, A.J., 2012. Managing global heritage in the face of future climate change:the importance of understanding geological and geomorphological processesand hazards. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 1e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.681680.

Jacobson, E., 2012. Industrial Landscape Preservation: an Expanded Approach toProtect the Working Small Town. University of Washington. Master thesis.

Kaltenborn, B.P., 1998. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmentalimpacts. Appl. Geogr. 18, 169e189.

Khakzad, S., 2012. Fisher's Cultural Heritage: a Brief Study on the Tangible andIntangible Cultural Heritage of Fishers in Carteret County, Sub-report of: Grif-fith, D. And Mirabilio S., 2012, Raising Awareness of Commercial Fishing withQuality Seafood: Best Marketing Practices in South Atlantic Fishing Commu-nities, Survey & Related Findings from the Study: Assessing and DevelopingBest Practices in Seafood Marketing and Consumption.

Khakzad, S., 2014. The necessity of a common language for coastal and underwatercultural heritage. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2 (1), 17e31. June.

Knnedy, J., Thomas, J.W., 1995. Managing natural resources as social value. A NewCentury Nat. Resour. Manag. 311e321.

Kozhevnikov, M., 2007. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: to-ward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychol. Bull. 133 (3), 464.

Krakow Charter on the Principles of the Conservation and Restoration of BuiltHeritage, 2000.

Lambeck, K., Anzidei, M., Antonioli, F., Benini, A., Esposito, E., 2004. Sea level inRoman time in the Central Mediterranean and implications for modern sealevel rise. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 224, 563e575.

Local Government Association (LGA), 2002. On the Edge- the Coastal Strategy. AReport Prepared by the Local Government Association Special Interest Group onCoastal Issues. LGA, London.

Maarleveld, T., 2009. Maritime archaeologydStatus and identity? In: Muller, U.,Kleingartner, S., Huber, F. (Eds.), Zwischen Nord- und Ostee 1997e2007 ZehnJahre Arbeitsgruppe fur maritime und limnische Archaologie (AMLA) inSchlewig-Holstein. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp. 51e62.

Maarleveled, T.J., 2012. The maritime paradox: does international heritage exist?,.Int. J. Herit. Stud. 18 (4), 418e431.

Maelfait, H., Debergh, H., Lescrauwaet, A.K., Belpaeme, K. (Eds.), 2012. Het Kust-kompas: indicatoren als wegwijzers voor een duurzaam kustbeheer.Co€ordinatiepunt Duurzaam Kustbeheer, Oostende, p. 80.

Marine Protected Areas, 2011. Recommendations for Integrated Management Usinga Cultural Landscape Approach in the National MPA System, Federal AdvisoryCommittee, November. Accessible at. www.mpa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/mpafac_rec_cultural_landscape_12_11.pdf.

McVey, J., Erlandson, J., 2012. As the world warms: rising seas, coastal archaeology,and the erosion of maritime history. Coast Conserv. 16, 137e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0104-5.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D. C. Accessible at. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html (visited 15 Jan. 2015).

Murphy, P., Thackray, D., Wilson, E., 2009. Coastal heritage and climate change inEngland: assessing threats and priorities. Conservation Manag. Archaeol. Sites11 (1), 9e15.

Murray, T., 2004. The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies (Cambridge, UK).Nora, P., 1989. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de M�emoire.


Representations 26, 7e25.Nora, P., 1996. The Era of commemoration. In: Nora, Pierre, Kritzman, L. (Eds.),

Realms of Memory: the Construction of the French Past, vol. 3. Columbia Uni-versity Press, New York, pp. 609e637.

OSPAR, 2009. Assessment of the Impact of Coastal Defence Structures. OSPARCommission.

Oxley, I., 1998. The investigation of the factors that affect the preservation of un-derwater archaeological sites. In: Babits, L., Van Tiburg, H. (Eds.), MaritimeArchaeology, pp. 523e529.

O'Hagan, A., Ballinger, R., 2009. Coastal governance in North West Europe: anassessment of approaches to the European stocktake. Mar. Policy 33 (6),912e922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.009.

Pearson, M., 2007. Climate change and its impacts on Australia's cultural heritage.In: A Paper for the Australia ICOMOS Extreme Heritage Conference: WorldHeritage Centre: 53, 65ffdextrapolated by the Author for the AustralianContext.

Pieters, M., 2006. Les �epaves, un voyage dans le temps: mythe arch�eologique our�ealit�e. Journ�ee d'�etude: les �epaves, �eternelles ou perdues �a jamais, 20/06/2006,Ostende.

Pieters, M., Strubbe, B., Van Dijck, M., Pirlet, H., 2013. Maritime and coastal heritage.In: Lescrauwaet, A.K., Pirlet, H., Verleye, T., Mees, J., Herman, R. (Eds.), Com-pendium for Coast and Sea 2013: Integrating Knowledge on the Socio-economic, Environmental and Institutional Aspects of the Coast and Sea inFlanders and Belgium, pp. 187e196. Oostende, Belgium.

Pinder, D., 2003. Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in theUK coastal zone. J. Cult. Herit. 4, 35e47.

Pinder, D., Vallega, A., 2003. Coastal cultural heritage and sustainable development:introduction. J. Cult. Herit. 4, 3e4.

Plieninger, T., Mainou, J.M.Y., Konold, W., 2004. Land manager attitudes towardmanagement, regeneration, and conservation of Spanish holm oak savannas.Landsc. Urban Plan. 66, 185e198.

Reed, M., Courtney, P., Urquhart, J., Ross, N., 2013. Beyond fish as commodities:understanding the socio-cultural role of inshore fisheries in England. Mar.Policy 37, 62e68.

Renting, H., Marsden, T., Banks, J., 2003. Understanding alternative food networks:exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ.Plan. A 35, 393e411.

Riley, R., 1999. A model-based approach to unraveling naval defence heritage:Supply- demand-side Issues Portsmouth's Coast. Zone Ocean Coast. Manag. 42,891e908.

Rizzo, I., Mignosa, A. (Eds.), 2013. Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage,pp. 567e568 (UK).

Røpke, I., 2004. The early history of modern ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 50(3e4), 293e314.

Salmons, B.A., 2007. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Cultural Heritage: aLiterature Review, Pol Sci. 542: “Policy and Politics of Coastal Areas”. Iowa StateUniversity.

Santoro, F., Lescrauwaet, A.K., Taylor, J., Breton, F. (Eds.), 2014. Integrated RegionalAssessments in Support of ICZM in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins.Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris, p. 84 (IOCTechnical Series, 111; IOC/2014/TS/111.).

Scriven, M., 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus. Sage, Newbury Park.Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2001. A Coastal Management Trust for

Scotland e A Concept Development and Feasibility Study. The Stationary Office,Edinburgh.

Spain Ministry of Culture, 2009. Green Paper, National Plan for the Protection ofUnderwater Cultural Heritage.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P.E., Streufert, S., 1992. Conceptual/integrative complexity. In:Smith, C.P., Atkinson, J.W., McClelland, D.C., Veroff, J. (Eds.), Motivation andPersonality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Somers, E., Maes, F., 2011. The Law Applicable on the Continental Shelf and in theExclusive Economic Zone: The Belgian Perspective, Ocean Yearbook, 250(249).

Taveira-Pinto, F., 2004. The practice of coastal zone management in Portugal.J. Coast. Conserv. 10, 147e158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1652/1400-0350(2004)010[0147:tpoczm]2.0.co;2.

Tengberg, A., Fredholm, Susanne, Eliasson, Ingegard, Knez, Igor, Saltzman, Katarina,Wetterberg, O., 2012. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes:assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Services2 14e26.

Throsby, C.D., 1999. Cultural capital. J. Cult. Econ. 23 (1e2), 3e12.Throsby, C.D., 2000. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press.Throsby, C.D., 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press, NY.Throsby, C.D., 2002. Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts in the Economics

of Cultural Heritage, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. In: de laTorre, M. (Ed.). The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.

Throsby, C.D., 2005. On the Sustainability of Cultural Capital. No. 0510. MacquarieUniversity, Department of Economics, Sydney.

Throsby, C.D., 2010. The Economics of Cultural Policy. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Triandis, H.C., 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York.UNCLOS, 1982: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_

overview_convention.htm (accessed 13.01.15.)UNESCO, 1998. World Culture Report. UNESCO, Paris Referring to “World Culture

Report: Culture, Creativity and Markets.”.UNESCO, 2008. Policy Document on the Impact of Climate Change on World










http://www.oostendewerft.be/uplfile/globaal%20masterplan%20oosteroever.pdf

http://www.oostendewerft.be/uplfile/globaal%20masterplan%20oosteroever.pdf




























http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.681680

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.681680










































http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/mpafac_rec_cultural_landscape_12_11.pdf

http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/mpafac_rec_cultural_landscape_12_11.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0104-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0104-5

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html




















http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.009










































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1652/1400-0350(2004)010


















http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm





Heritage Properties.UNESCO, 2012. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heri-

tage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, p. 14.Urquhart, J., Acott, T., 2012. Constructing ‘The Stade’: Fishers' and Non-fishers’

Identity and Place Attachment in Hastings, South-east England. Mar. Policy.Accessible at. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.004 (Last access: 13Jan. 2014).

Vallega, A., 2001. Urban waterfront facing integrated coastal management. OceanCoast. Manag. 44 (5e6), 379e410.

Vallega, A., 2003. The coastal cultural heritage facing coastal management. J. Cult.Herit. 4 (1), 5e24.

Van den Eynde, D., 2011. Sediment fluxes in the Belgian coastal zone & influence ofglobal change scenarios on siltation of fair channels [PPT Presentation]. In:QUEST4D Symposium, 2011: Human Footprint on the Floor. Keys from the Past.Doors to the Future, 2nd September 2011, Brussels, pp. 1e22.

Van den Eynde, D., De Smet, L., De Sutter, R., Francken, F., Maes, F., Ozer, J., Polet, H.,Ponsar, S., Van der Biest, K., Vanderperren, E., Verwaest, T., Volckaert, A.,Willekens, M., 2009. Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts and AdaptationResponses for Marine Activities CLIMAR: Final Report Phase 1. Belgian SciencePolicy, Brussel, p. 81. Accessible at. http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l¼en&COD¼SD/NS/01A (Last access: 13 Jan. 2014).

Van den Eynde, D., De Sutter, R., Maes, F., Verwaest, T., van Bockstaele, E., 2008.Evaluation of climate change impacts and adaptation responses for marineactivities: climar. Summary report Phase 1 of the climar project for BelgianFederal Science Policy Office.

Van Haelst, S., Pieters, M., Demerre, I., 2014. Aggregate extraction versus archaeo-logical heritage: how to reach a win-win? In: De Mol, Lies,Helga, Vandenreyken (Eds.), Which Future for the Sand Extraction in theBelgian Part of the North Sea?, Study Day, Belgium Pier e Blankenberge.

Varmer, O., 2014. Underwater Cultural Heritage Law Study. U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Veloso-Gomes, F., Taveira-Pinto, F., 2003. Source Portuguese coastal zones and thenew coastal management plans. J. Coast. Conserv. 9 (1), 25e34. Towards Inte-grated Coastal Management, with a Special Emphasis on the MediterraneanSea.

Veloso-Gomes, F., Barroco, A., Pereira, A.R., Reis, C.S., Calado, H., Ferreira, J.G., DaConceiç~ao Freitas, M., Biscoito, M., 2008. Basis for a national strategy for inte-grated coastal zone managementdin Portugal. J. Coast. Conserv. 12 (1), 3e9.Coastal Management Strategies.

Willems, W.J.H., 2009. In: Phyllis, Messenger, Georg, Smith (Eds.), Laws, Languageand Learning: Managing Archaeological Heritage Resources in Europe, CulturalHeritage Management, a Global Perspective, pp. 212e242.


Xepapadeas, A., 2008. Ecological Economics, the New Palgrave Dictionary of Eco-nomics, second ed. Palgrave MacMillan.

Consulted websites

Belspobe, 2015. FEDRA e Research Project. Retrieved 3 April 2015, from. http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l¼en&COD¼SD/NS/01A.

Compendiumkustenzee.be, 2015. Architectural Heritage along the Coast j Com-pendium Coast and Sea. Retrieved 2 February 2015, from. http://www.compendiumkustenzee.be/en/architectural-heritage-along-coast.

Europa web-portal, 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index_en.cfm?pg¼publications&tab¼all (Last visited: 19 Jan. 2015)

Geo.onroerenderfgoed.be, 2015. Geoportaal j Onroerend Erfgoed. Retrieved 2February 2015, from. https://geo.onroerenderfgoed.be.

Health.belgium.be, 2015. Seaspatialplan. Retrieved 28 January 2015, from. http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/Environment/Environmentalrigh/Environmentalrights/PublicConsultations/seaspatialplan/index.htm#.U7Ugw7HlnB8.

Imo.org, 2015. IMO j about IMO. Retrieved 28 January 2015, from. http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Default.aspx.

Maritieme-archeologie.be, 2015. maritieme archeologie. Retrieved 2 February 2015,from. http://www.maritieme-archeologie.be.

Nature 2000: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/(Last visited: 19Jan. 2015)

Oceanservice.noaa.gov, 2015. Marine Protected Areas. Retrieved 18 May 2015, from.http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/mpa/.

Sanctuaries.noaa.gov, 2015. National Marine Sanctuaries Act and Legislation.Retrieved 3 April 2015, from. http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/welcome.html.

UNESCO, Marine Spatial Planning: http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp (Last visited: 19 Jan. 2015).

Vliz.be, 2015. BEWREMABI e Belgian Shipwrecks: Hotspots for Marine Biodiversity.Retrieved 28 January 2015, from. http://www.vliz.be/projects/bewremabi/description.php.

Wrecksite.eu., (2015). WRECKSITE. Retrieved 2 February 2015, from http://www.wrecksite.eu.

Www2.psych.ubc.ca, 2015. Peter Suedfeld's Homepage e Complexity. Retrieved 30March 2015, from. http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~psuedfeld/index2.html http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/planning-tools/coastal-land-development/introduction-and-the-framework-and-principles-for-coastal-management (Last visited: 19 Oct. 2014).





http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.004














http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l=en%26COD=SD/NS/01A







































http://www.compendiumkustenzee.be/en/architectural-heritage-along-coast

http://www.compendiumkustenzee.be/en/architectural-heritage-along-coast

http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index_en.cfm?pg=publications%26tab=all





https://geo.onroerenderfgoed.be

http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/Environment/Environmentalrigh/Environmentalrights/PublicConsultations/seaspatialplan/index.htm#.U7Ugw7HlnB8




http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Default.aspx

http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Default.aspx

http://www.maritieme-archeologie.be

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/mpa/

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/welcome.html

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/welcome.html

http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp

http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp

http://www.vliz.be/projects/bewremabi/description.php

http://www.vliz.be/projects/bewremabi/description.php

http://www.wrecksite.eu

http://www.wrecksite.eu

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/%7Epsuedfeld/index2.html%20http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/planning-tools/coastal-land-development/introduction-and-the-framework-and-principles-for-coastal-management




coastal cultural heritage a resource to be included (1)

Documents

coastal cultural landscape

extent of coastal cultural

coastal areas

cultural capital

socean coastal management

coastalcultural heritage

introductioncultural

loss of cul