Cliff Retreat and the Seawall Decision
A local council on Malta’s north-west coast has commissioned a coastal risk assessment for a 1.2 km stretch of cliffs cut in jointed limestone over soft clay. Behind the cliff are 14 permanent homes, a seasonal restaurant and a concrete promenade. Survey data show mean cliff retreat of 0.12 m per year between 1995 and 2020, but two storms in winter 2019 removed up to 1.8 m in a single season. A continuous seawall at the cliff base would cost €3.1 million, have a design life of 30 years and protect the assets, but it would bury the pocket beach and is expected to accelerate erosion downdrift. Managed retreat would cost €3.9 million: buying and relocating six properties at €450,000 each (€2.7 million), then removing the promenade and enforcing a 40 m setback (€1.2 million). The site lies within a Natura 2000 area and a scheduled Area of High Landscape Value. EU cohesion funding would cover 70% of either option, subject to an environmental assessment. Residents want immediate protection; the council must decide within six months.
1. Using the data, explain why the average retreat rate is a poor guide to risk at this site.
Read the worked answer
The mean of 0.12 m per year is a long-term average that hides episodic loss. The cliff is jointed limestone over soft clay: rainwater enters joints, softens the clay and builds pore pressure; wave undercutting removes the toe and creates a notch. In winter 2019 two storms combined high water levels, long fetch and saturated cliff material, so up to 1.8 m was lost in one season - fifteen times the annual mean. Risk assessment should therefore use event magnitude and return period, joint orientation, toe erosion, groundwater and beach presence, not just the mean. The 1.2 km frontage is not uniform: sections with dense joints and little beach are most vulnerable. A seawall would stop toe erosion but not subaerial weathering, so the cliff could still fail from above.
2. Evaluate the two options against economic, environmental and social criteria, and recommend a decision with conditions.
Read the worked answer
Economic: the seawall costs €3.1m; EU funding at 70% is €2.17m, leaving €0.93m local. Managed retreat costs €3.9m; EU funding is €2.73m, leaving €1.17m local. The seawall is cheaper locally and protects all 14 homes, the restaurant and promenade. But it buries the pocket beach, damages Natura 2000 interests and shifts erosion downdrift - external costs not in its budget. Retreat removes six properties but leaves eight homes and access issues, so compensation and relocation support are essential. Socially, residents want immediate protection; retreat may be unacceptable without a clear package. Environmentally, retreat allows the shoreline and beach to adjust naturally. Recommendation: refuse a continuous seawall as proposed. Use a hybrid: relocate the six most vulnerable properties, realign the promenade, and use small-scale toe protection only where assets cannot move. Conditions: independent coastal monitoring, trigger points such as 0.5 m loss in one winter, compensation, and the required environmental assessment.
3. Identify two stakeholders and explain how their interests conflict in this decision.
Read the worked answer
Residents behind the cliff want protection of their homes and access; they bear the social cost of retreat and may prefer the seawall despite its environmental effects. The environment ministry and Natura 2000 managers want natural coastal processes and habitat recovery; a seawall would bury the beach and damage protected interests. A second conflict is between the local council and downdrift users: a seawall protects one frontage but starves the next section of sediment, shifting erosion to other people’s property. The council also faces the EU funding condition, which requires an environmental assessment that may favour retreat. These conflicts mean the decision cannot be purely economic; it needs compensation, monitoring and a clear statement of who bears the residual risk.