A Physical and Controversial Analysis of Shoreline Change on North Carolina’s Barrier Islands
Abstract
With the density of development in North Carolina’s coastal counties at an unprecedented
high, the encroaching ocean is met with a heightened sense of urgency by coastal property
owners. In this urgent call for coastal managers and legislators to remedy coastal
investments, there is not a clear consensus to the appropriate action or lack thereof.
The physical complexity of the shoreline is such that no two segments are alike and
every action has consequences, making the balance of tradeoffs a very controversial
matter. This research uses the historical shoreline mapping of Springer’s Point nature
preserve on the barrier island of Ocracoke to demonstrate the naturally dynamic system
of an undeveloped, but historically and ecologically valued property. Subsequent
interviews with professionals working on coastal management issues provide a firsthand
account of the political complexity of North Carolina’s shoreline, particularly with
the added variable of development. Professional perspectives regarding the state
and fate of our shoreline shed light on the controversy that is further fueled by
accelerated sea level rise and the consequential political pressures. While urgency
sometimes leads to short-term solutions, the informed advice and proposals of these
professionals offer potential long-term alternatives. The key to our shoreline’s
future largely relies on the actions and legislation that we put in place today.
Type
Master's projectPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/2145Citation
Kelly, Katelin (2010). A Physical and Controversial Analysis of Shoreline Change on North Carolina’s Barrier
Islands. Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/2145.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info