Eithne Davis - A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal Erosion in County Sligo

1
Title of Project:
A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal
Erosion in County Sligo.
Author: Eithne Davis
Academic Year: 2014-2015
Supervisor: Mr Declan Feeney
This project is submitted as part fulfilment of the Honours Degree (Level 8) Environmental Science,
Institute of Technology, Sligo.

2
Abstract
The winter of 2013-2014 brought a series of storms that caused significant damage to coastal
areas all around Ireland. With predictions of more frequent and extreme weather events, it is
important that we understand the dynamics of coastal erosion in order to make informed and
intelligent policy decisions.
A field survey was undertaken to identify damage sustained in the winter of 2013-2014, and
shapefiles of eroded areas created using GIS software. These shapefiles were used as a
baseline to evaluate the quality of the subsequent desktop survey. The desktop survey used
orthophotographs, oblique photographs and maps to gather information on physical
characteristics of the sample sites as well as their socio-economic vulnerability. This
information was then analysed using risk assessment matrices. The resulting data was
processed to produce a series of hazard maps identifying the locations of highest priority for
monitoring and management.
The results showed that the desktop risk assessment methods used are adaptable for various
coasts, and gave a good level of accuracy when compared to the results of the field survey.
Common features such as a sheer cliff-face consisting of unconsolidated material emerged as
high risk factors. Contrary to expectations, direct exposure to prevailing storm fronts did not
automatically increase the risk of erosion. Rather, shorelines lying at a sub-parallel angle to
the prevailing storm fronts showed more damage. Socio-economic features such as
infrastructure and cultural heritage create a priority for attention, but coastal habitats under
protection are dynamic environments, and depend on erosion to maintain their unique fabric.

3
Statement of Authenticity
I certify that the content of this project is entirely my own work and is submitted in part
fulfilment of the B.Sc. (Honours) Degree in Environmental Science at the Institute of
Technology, Sligo.
Any material adopted from other sources is duly cited and referenced and acknowledged as
such.
Signed: ______________________________
Eithne Davis (Student)
______________________________
Declan Feeney (Project Supervisor)
Date: 2nd April, 2015

4
Acknowledgements
This project grew from small seeds that were planted by many and watered by others. To
each and every one of you who engaged with me, to whatever extent, I want to express my
warmest gratitude. Your questions, your suggestions, your company and your cups of tea all
helped shape this piece of work into what it is, and ultimately made me see the world in a
slightly different way.
First and foremost, I want to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Declan
Feeney: you gave me the space to make it my own, the encouragement to keep going, and just
enough guidance to keep me on track. It was a pleasure to work with you on this project.
The staff and lecturers at IT Sligo; Steve Tonry, Cian Taylor, Sam Moore, James Bonsall,
David Doyle, Fiona Beglane- your support and curiosity made this project take on a life of its
own. The single frames of reference, the fractals..... there were times when I didn't know
whether I was studying science or philosophy, and I am truly indebted.
To my classmates who kept insisting it would be grand - I hate to admit it, but you were right.
Sharing the last four years was fantastic. Thanks for your good spirit, your straight talking,
and when all seemed lost, for the emails of funny cat videos.
To my walking companions; Bridget, Rory, Alan and Sinéad, my trusty proof-readers; Aisling
and Yvette, and my cheerleading squad: my family and friends. You made me take a break
when I would have kept going, and kept me going when I would have given up.
But most of all, my husband, Ciarán - you walked every inch of that coastline with me, and
shared your beautiful photographs. And put up with seeing only the back of my laptop screen
as thanks. I couldn't have done this without you. Thank you.

5
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 4
Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 8
Context of the study ............................................................................................................................ 8
Aims and Objectives of the study ..................................................................................................... 10
1.0 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 12
1.1 What we know about coastal erosion and cliff habitats .............................................................. 12
1.2 The study site chosen - an exposed, dynamic coastline .............................................................. 13
1.3 The influences which lead to erosion on our coasts.................................................................... 18
1.4 Data sources available for desktop surveys................................................................................. 19
1.5 Limitations - Gaps in the data, and inherent uncertainty in methodology ................................. 23
1.6 International and National Policy on Response to Coastal Erosion............................................ 24
1.7 Summary of the key points found in the literature...................................................................... 25
2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 26
2.1 Preparatory and planning stage ................................................................................................... 26
2.2 Field survey................................................................................................................................. 29
2.3 Desktop survey............................................................................................................................ 31
2.4 Analysis of results using GIS software ....................................................................................... 36
2.5 Return site visits.......................................................................................................................... 37
3.0 Results............................................................................................................................................. 38
3.1 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................ 39
3.2 Desktop Survey ......................................................................................................................... 400
3.3 Socio-economic vulnerability ................................................................................................... 444
3.4 Analysis of 6 most at-risk, high-value sites, implying high priority locations.......................... 477
3.5 Policy and planning maps ......................................................................................................... 500
4.0 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 522
4.1 Main findings from study.......................................................................................................... 522
4.2 Comparison between field survey and desktop survey ............................................................. 533
4.3 Difficulties in geospatial interpretation..................................................................................... 556
4.4 Use of indices.............................................................................................................................. 58
4.5 Use of OPW Erosion Maps....................................................................................................... 622
4.6 Limitations on the survey.......................................................................................................... 633

6
5 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ 667
5.1 Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 68
References............................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 75
Appendix I Boat Survey Photographs............................................................................................... 75
Appendix II - Raughley Survey Photographs.................................................................................... 77
Appendix III - Lislarry to Streedagh Photographs............................................................................ 79
Appendix IV - Raughley Survey Field Data Sheets.......................................................................... 83
Appendix V - Attribute Tables from ArcGIS.................................................................................. 105

7
Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Ireland's coast is exposed to the full extent of weather........................................................................8
Figure 2 - County Sligo, on the North West coast of Ireland ................................................................................9
Figure 3 - Section of County Sligo coastline chosen for study............................................................................10
Figure 4 - The two lengths of coastline chosen for the study area.......................................................................14
Figure 5 - Exposed soil on eroded cliff-faces......................................................................................................16
Figure 6 - Map illustrating the extent of Natura 2000 site designations in the area ............................................18
Figure 7 - Sample image taken from oblique imagery viewer.............................................................................20
Figure 8 - The quality of orthophotographs is improving....................................................................................21
Figure 9 - Photograph of shoreline at Lislarry, County Sligo..............................................................................26
Figure 10 - A section of the same stretch of coastline as photographed from boat survey....................................27
Figure 11 - Orthophotograph of North County Sligo ............................................................................................28
Figure 12 - Detailed shapefile of North County Sligo...........................................................................................30
Figure 13 - Discrepancies in some GPS recorded positions..................................................................................30
Figure 14 - Oblique imagery compared to historic 6' maps ..................................................................................32
Figure 15 - Hazard index.......................................................................................................................................33
Figure 16 - The aspect of each of the points along the coastline...........................................................................34
Figure 17 - Table showing calculations used to apply hazard ratings. ..................................................................35
Figure 18 - Resulting table assigning hazard ratings.............................................................................................35
Figure 19 - Socio-economic vulnerability index. ..................................................................................................36
Figure 20 - Map illustrating the areas where erosion was recorded ......................................................................39
Figure 21 - Map illustrating the areas where erosion was recorded ......................................................................39
Figure 22 - Table quantifying the actual erosion recorded in the field..................................................................39
Figure 23 - During the desktop survey, a total of 47 sites were recorded .............................................................40
Figure 24 - Sites surveyed by desktop methods on Raughley peninsula ...............................................................40
Figure 25 - Locations of recent erosion identified in field survey of Raughley ....................................................41
Figure 26 - High risk sites identified in desktop survey overlaid with locations of erosion..................................41
Figure 27 - Sites surveyed by desktop methods in the Lislarry to Streedagh area ................................................42
Figure 28- Locations of recent erosion identified in field survey of Lislarry to Streedagh...................................43
Figure 29 - High risk sites identified in desktop survey overlaid with locations of erosion..................................43
Figure 30 - Sites with a socio-economic rating higher than the median value .....................................................44
Figure 31- Sites with a rating above the median values ........................................................................................44
Figure 32 - Sites with a socio-economic rating higher than the median value ......................................................45
Figure 33 - Sites with a rating above the median values .......................................................................................45
Figure 34 - An analysis of the 3 highest-scoring sites in the Raughley survey .....................................................47
Figure 35 - An analysis of the 3 highest-scoring sites in the Lislarry to Streedagh survey...................................48
Figure 36 - Table showing occurrence of hazard factors in the 6 most high value, at risk sites............................49
Figure 37 - Table showing occurrence of socio-economic factors in the 6 most at risk sites................................49
Figure 38 - Section from the OPW erosion risk map ............................................................................................50
Figure 39 - Areas identified as being of high risk and high value from this survey, compared with the areas
identified in the OPW erosion risk map ................................................................................................................50
Figure 40 - Section from the OPW erosion risk map ............................................................................................50
Figure 41 - Areas identified as being of high risk and high value from this survey, compared with the areas
identified in the OPW erosion risk map ................................................................................................................50
Figure 42 - Rock collapse at site R08 on Raughley peninsula. .............................................................................54
Figure 43 - Freshly exposed prehistoric midden material behind collapsed cliff face at site R08. .......................54
Figure 44 - A map illustrating discrepancies.........................................................................................................57
Figure 45 - At larger scales, lack of detail becomes even more evident................................................................57
Figure 47 - Boat survey route................................................................................................................................75

8
Introduction
Context of the study
County Sligo, where this study is based, is a coastal county in the Northwest of Ireland,
perched on the western edge of Europe, on the North Eastern Atlantic Ocean. This coastline
bears the brunt of the most violent weather systems travelling across the Atlantic from
America, and is subject to prevailing South Westerly winds.
Figure 1 - - Ireland's coast is exposed to the full extent of weather crossing the Atlantic Ocean, with prevailing weather conditions
from the South West
It is here that Atlantic Storms and the tail end of hurricanes first make landfall, dispersing
some of their energy before progressing towards mainland Europe. In this way, Ireland, and
the similar coast that can be found in Scotland, often provide the initial protection to the rest
of Europe in the face of Atlantic storms. With impending acceleration of climate change,
altering weather patterns and predicted sea-level rise, it is highly likely that the dynamics
which have previously affected erosion rates along this coast will alter, perhaps subtly, with
potentially devastating long-term consequences for coastal communities.

9
Figure 2 - County Sligo, on the North West coast of Ireland
Understanding coastal processes is the first step in responsible, informed decision-making.
Sustainability Science has a role to play in Integrated Coastal Zone Management, where
scientists, policy-makers and practitioners come together to work with a common purpose.
There is a responsibility on scientists to provide the best information possible. If we want to
establish proactive management practices, it is not good enough to assume that methods
previously employed are still state of the art.

10
Figure 3 - Section of County Sligo coastline chosen for study. The coastline is rugged and highly embayed, with a mixture of dune
systems and hard and soft cliffs.
Aims and Objectives of the study
This study aims to review current practices in assessing, monitoring and predicting coastal
erosion. In the context of rapidly changing technology, emerging resources which could raise
the standards of coastal monitoring in the near future are briefly assessed.
The chosen study area is surveyed in order to establish whether or not it is under threat from
coastal erosion. Various methods of monitoring coastal erosion are reviewed to identify an
accurate risk-assessment method.
A brief overview of EU and Irish policies is incorporated into this study to show the context
in which monitoring of specific sites can be a useful tool in decision-making, and to review
the current recommendations and actions being taken with regard to Coastal Zone
Management.

11
In order to achieve these aims, an attempt was made to accurately quantify the length of
coastline which was affected by the winter storms of 2013/2014 by ground-truthing the
survey areas. Using GIS software (ESRI), maps were generated to illustrate the extent of
erosion in the area. The physical risk of erosion and the socio-economic vulnerability of the
survey area were assessed in detail using separate matrices. These results were compared
with the results of the field surveys to assess the accuracy level of the desktop methods.
Databases were interrogated to identify areas of high priority, from both a physical risk of
erosion and a socio-economic viewpoint. The results are presented using GIS, in an easily-
interpreted series of maps.

12
1.0 Literature Review
1.1 What we know about coastal erosion and cliff habitats
Approximately 70% of coastline globally, and 20% of Ireland's coastline, is identified as
being at risk from erosion. The Coastal Zone Management Review (Cummins et al. 2004,
JNCC 2004) estimates that approximately 60% of the Irish population live in coastal areas.
Sustainable development requires planners to be informed on the long-term effects of
proposed developments, particularly in light of Sea-level Rise predictions. An iterative
approach at coastal management must begin with producing a coastal profile to act as a
baseline for future monitoring.
The Irish Sea Cliff Survey (Barron et al. 2011, JNCC 2004), the first systematic national
survey of sea-cliff habitats and conservation status in Ireland, identified a lack of detailed
information regarding the hard coast of Ireland. The initial preliminary survey assessed 3
sites in County Sligo for the quality of the habitat, biodiversity, with a further, second survey
planned. None of these fall within the survey area. Sea cliffs provide habitat to the Annex I
species chough (pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) and peregrine falcon (falco peregrinus), and over
20 species of Red Data Book invertebrates, as well as many salt-tolerant plant species.(Barron
et al. 2011) A provisional list of sites to be surveyed during phase 2 of the national survey is
nominated in the report, but has been postponed indefinitely (O'Connor 2014, Andrady 2011).
Much of the Irish coastline is soft cliff, which consists of unconsolidated material and is
particularly vulnerable to wave action and wash-out from precipitation.
This study was undertaken in order to better understand the state of the knowledge on the
dynamics involved in coastal erosion and the principals being applied to coastal management
at a Regional, National and Local level. To study the effect of erosion on this coast, it is
necessary to investigate the dynamics involved in coastal erosion, and to identify resources

13
which may be helpful in surveying this particular stretch of coastline. The literature for this
study was systematically selected using agency reports, their main reference maps and
documents, and predefined database searches.
Erosion is primarily caused by wind action (both through wave generation and direct impact)
and precipitation, and can be exacerbated by land-use practices (Clarke and Rendell 2009).
Significant storms in the winter of 2013/2014 caused extensive coastal damage in Ireland
(met.ie 2014).
The habitat being studied is Vegetated Sea Cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230),
which are an Annex I listed habitat under the EU Habitats Directive . The Irish Sea Cliff
Survey was undertaken to inform on the nature of the hard coastline, as part of Ireland's
obligations to monitor and report to the EU (EU 1992). The preliminary stage of this survey
has been completed (Barron et al. 2011). Dune and beach systems are better understood and
are regularly monitored under the Coastal Monitoring Project (Ryle et al. 2009), which is
specifically aimed at these soft shorelines, and thus they are not of a concern for this study.
1.2 The study site chosen - an exposed, dynamic coastline
This project will focus on erosion of hard coastline (hard and soft cliffs and rocky shorelines)
in an area of North County Sligo between Raughley and Streedagh. There is anecdotal
evidence of erosion in this area after every extreme weather event, but this has never been
formally studied.

14
Figure 4 - The two lengths of coastline chosen for the study area, highlighted here in red. The sites are primarily cliff habitats, with
anecdotal reports of damage after every storm event.
The Irish Sea Cliff Survey was designed as a preliminary study of the coastline as required by
the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EU 1992). Sample sites were studied from around the
coast, and only 3 sites in Sligo were chosen; Ballincar, Aughris and Streedagh. Of these, only
the Streedagh site is within the study area. While the Sea Cliff Survey produced a large
amount of good data on very specific sites, it was limited in its scope (Barron et al. 2011).
1.2.1 Nature of the shoreline - categorising a complex mosaic.
For this study, hard shoreline is defined as areas which are not made up of mobile sediment
systems, such as sandy beaches and dunes. The Sea Cliff Survey set criteria of a minimum of
5m in height for hard cliffs and 3m for soft cliffs, and a minimum length of 100m. The study
being undertaken here is focussed on observing a continuous length of coastline without
access to extensive technical resources. In contrast, the Sea Cliff Survey was heavily
resourced and studied the finer technical detail of representative sites, so these parameters are
taken as a guideline only for this project, which focuses on using minimal resources to
identify high priority sites for closer examination.

15
No site-specific information could be found in the literature that gives a detailed breakdown
of the type of cliff present, and in what proportion. Hard and soft cliffs have very different
characteristics. Hard cliff is inhospitable by its nature, while soft cliff can support a range of
pioneer species (e.g. agrostis stolonifera and tussilago farfara) but these are easily washed
away by extreme weather events. The main objective of soft cliff habitats is that fresh soils
are exposed on a regular basis to maintain the natural conditions, which will struggle to
achieve succession growth (JNCC 2004).
The study area is a macro-tidal, high-energy, embayed coastline, which is likely to have
evolved to a high level of stability. The erosive effect of extreme weather events is known to
have a greater impact in low-energy areas whose soft characteristics have not been tested by
high-energy storm events on a regular basis. It has been demonstrated that locally generated
waves, caused by sudden upwelling of ocean waves when they meet shallower inshore
bathymetry, have a more damaging effect on a coastline than remotely generated ocean
waves. An extreme weather event that coincides with high water spring tides is the most
damaging scenario. (Cooper et al. 2004). Maximum tidal range is approximately 4.5m.
(Marine.ie 2015)
1.2.2 Topography and geology
The bedrock of the study area is limestone (GSI 2015). The foreshore is mainly bare karstic
rock and supports only a very limited range of salt-tolerant plants in the crevices. The nature,
gradient, and direction of slope on these shorelines has a strong influence on the energy
distribution of storm surges reaching the land. Steep terraces tend to dispel the wave energy
before it hits the land. Pebble beaches similarly disperse the ocean's energy, and frequently
create or feed storm beaches on the adjacent land.
The cliffs of the West Coast of Ireland tend to be high and steep, or even sheer. The higher
and steeper the cliff, the greater the influence of gravity on the erosive potential of the site.

16
Soft cliffs, consisting mainly of unconsolidated material and limestone are much more
vulnerable to erosion than hard cliffs of metamorphic material (JNCC 2004). The JNCC
document states that soft cliff is generally less steep than hard cliff, but this was challenged by
the Irish Sea Cliff Survey (Barron et al. 2011) which found no difference in gradient between
the two cliff types.
1.2.3 Habitats
The Irish Sea Cliff Survey (Barron et al. 2011) was established to address a gap in the
knowledge of the nature and species of the sea cliff sites of Ireland. Lengths of this coastline
are categorised as . Vegetated Sea Cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (1230) which is an
Annex 1 listed habitat, and as such must be monitored and reported on every 6 years. Only 7
sea cliff sites were listed in the survey for County Sligo, and these added up to 17.82km. The
majority of this coastline falls broadly into the category of inshore littoral biotopes. (Connor
et al. 1997b, Connor et al. 1997a) Shoreline habitats are complex to categorise, difficult to
measure, and dangerous to observe during extreme weather events (Williams and Hall 2004,
Hall et al. 2006).
Figure 5 - Exposed soil on eroded cliff-faces is home to Sand Martin (Riparia riparia) burrows, as visible at the top of this cliff.

17
Cliff habitats are dependent on the processes of erosion to maintain their nature and specific
biodiversity. Many of the species found there, such as sand martins (riparia riparia), solitary
bees and invertebrates will not be found inhabiting the more stable habitats close by (Barron
et al. 2011, JNCC 2004). Coastal erosion is a natural process. Without it we would not have
cliff habitats. Erosion can only be considered a "risk" for cliff habitats if it is being
exacerbated by anthropogenic factors (JNCC 2004).
The area of the study is rich in high value habitat, and this is evident from the percentage of
Sligo Bay that has been given special designation status under Natura 2000 (see Figure 6).
The study area contains sections of Special Protected Areas (SPA), Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC), Natural Heritage Area (NHA) and proposed Natural Heritage Area
(pNHA) (NPWS 2015, NPWS 2009b). On examination of the Conservation Objectives for
the area, the focus is on mudflats and intertidal areas, and the area of this study is primarily of
concern to the Harbour Seal (phoca vitulina). There are particularly large populations of
barnacle goose (branta leucopsis) and brent Goose (branta bernicla), as well as whooper
swans (cygnus cygnus), ringed plover (charadrius hiaticula), grey plover (pluvialis
squatarola), lapwing (vanellinae), snipe (f. scollopacidea), oystercatcher (f. haematopdidae),
and curlew (g. numenius) in the adjacent areas, and particularly in Ballygilgan Nature
Reserve, which is very close to the study area. The quality of the shoreline enhances the
quality of the overwintering waterfowl habitat in general. (NPWS 2009a, NPWS 2009b)

18
Figure 6 - Map illustrating the extent of Natura 2000 site designations in the area, including SPA, SAC and pNHA.
Studies have shown that cliff top habitats can be an important feeding ground for wading
birds when they occur in areas bounded by hard shoreline at high water (Furnell and Hull
2014). This may be of lesser significance in this area due to the topography.
1.3 The influences which lead to erosion on our coasts
1.3.1 Maritime impacts on the land
The west coast of Ireland is directly under the influence of North East Atlantic sea conditions.
In the prevailing south- westerly conditions waves reach here from North America,
unimpeded by any other land mass. Long, rolling ocean waves are first pushed upwards when
they meet the Porcupine Bank, approximately 110nm to the west of the coast. Sea surges are
funnelled into Sligo Bay under this influence.
Studies in the Aran Islands have observed the energy of the North Atlantic by studying the
size and altitude of megaclasts deposited on cliff tops during storm events, as well as the

19
distance and direction that existing clasts have been moved during these events. Clasts of 250
tonnes have been carried onto the shore at sea level, 117 tonnes at 12m above sea level, and
2.9 tonne clasts at 50m above sea level, demonstrating the incredible power of these waves.
The presence of plastics trapped under some of these clasts show that they have been
deposited in relatively recent events. (Williams and Hall 2004, Hall et al. 2006)
1.3.2 Meteorological influences - wind and rain.
The weather in the west coast of Ireland is dominated by Gulf Stream influences, making it a
temperate maritime climate. The prevailing wind is from the south west, and rainfall levels
are high, averaging 1000 - 1400mm of rainfall per annum on the west coast (met.ie 2014).
Winds on this coastline are generally unbroken in their crossing of the Atlantic, and the most
severe storms are a result of hurricanes travelling across the Atlantic from North America,
with a fetch of thousands of miles (Lozano et al. 2004). Maximum wind speeds of 98knots in
gusts have been recorded at Belmullet in 1961 (met.ie 2014).
1.3.3 Climate Change as a future threat
As a result of climate change, annual rainfall is predicted to rise by 25% in winter months by
2050 (Sweeney and Fealy 2002, IPCC 2014, Falaleeva et al. 2011, ICCC 2004). Heavy
rainfall can wash out large areas of soft cliff (JNCC 2004). When combined with predictions
of rising sea levels and less frequent but more intense storm activity (Lozano et al. 2004,
Hickey March 2015), this is a significant predictor of increased rates of erosion by the end of
this century.
1.4 Data sources available for desktop surveys
1.4.1 Orthophotographs and oblique imagery as a data source
One of the main data sources for the Sea Cliff Survey is the Coastal Helicopter Survey (OPW
2003), which provides oblique imagery for the entire coastline of Ireland, excluding only

20
some of the offshore islands. The imagery is now over 10 years old, but provides good
comparative information. A similar dataset is used in Northern Ireland to study coastal
erosion. (Westley March 2015)
Figure 7 - Sample image taken from oblique imagery viewer. These images were the main source of data for the desktop survey.
(OPW 2003)
Modern orthophotographs are still not accurate enough for measurement of land area, as can
be seen in Figure 8 when attempting to compare the same stretch of coastline using the OSI
Mapviewer (OSI 2014b).

21
Figure 8 - The quality of orthophotographs is improving immensely, but is not yet of a high enough quality for comparative
purposes. 1995 orthophotograph (above) compared with 2005 orthophotograph (middle). (OSI 2014b), and 2015 image (below)
(Microsoft 2015b)
Allowances for the curvature of the earth, plus the angle at which the image was captured, and
inconsistent shadows, mean that overlaying orthophotos from different years is difficult.
Since the OPW Helicopter Survey was completed in 2003, rapid developments have been

22
made in photogrammetry methods using drone photography. These methods are highly
accurate, allow for 3-dimensional measurements to be recorded, and even have the potential
for the creation of 3-D printed models. Drone photogrammetry is becoming an increasingly
economically viable option , with high quality equipment being developed for the mass
market. (Colomina and Molina 2014, Bemis et al. 2014, Dempsey March 2015)
1.4.2 Maps & Charts - still relevant in a digital age.
Historically, Ireland has some of the world's most sophisticated mapping, undertaken by the
Ordnance Survey in 1846 (6 inch maps) and 1890s (25 inch map) (OSI 2014b). Marine
navigation charts are in the remit of the British Admiralty, and show bathymetry in the study
area (UKHO 1979, UKHO 2006). The accuracy of all maps and charts are somewhat limited
by the methodology of the surveys. Intrinsic errors arise in compensating for the curvature of
the earth when creating a representation of the land in a 2-dimensional format (Lozano et al.
2004, Neilson and Costello 1999, Jenny and Hurni 2011). That said, ground-truthing of the
mapped areas in 1960 by Tellurometer, showed a discrepancy of only an inch in an eight mile
length on the original 6 inch map (OSI 2014a). This is an extraordinary level of accuracy
given the manual nature of the chain-surveying techniques employed at the time.

23
1.5 Limitations - Gaps in the data, and inherent uncertainty in methodology
1.5.1 Baseline data
As no baseline data is available for the study area, it is impossible to accurately measure the
volume of land which has been eroded. Many different map projections are used, but each
one is chosen for a specific purpose. At the outer edges of the map, such as at the coastline,
integral inaccuracies in the projection become amplified and area measurements are distorted.
1.5.2 Coastline Paradox
Measuring the shoreline is accepted as being an impossible task, as explained by the concept
of the Coastline Paradox. In 1967, Benoit B. Mandlebrot published his seminal work on
measuring coastlines, in which he explained their fractal nature (Mandlebrot 1967). A large
stretch of coastline observed on a small scale map looks somewhat similar to a cut-out of that
same coastline at a larger scale, and again, repeatedly, at larger and larger scales. Measuring
the same length of coastline on a small scale map will give a much shorter total figure than
measuring the same length of coastline on a large-scale map (see Figure 44, Figure 45). It is
simply not possible to define an exact scale at which to measure, and no two measurements
will be the same. This, coupled with the difficulty in choosing a line to measure at (High
Water/ Low Water/Chart Datum), makes any coastlines' length nothing more than a vague
estimate. This issue has been further described in regard to the fractal nature of the
Connemara Coastline. (Robinson 2003)
1.5.3 Coastal Recession rates
The lack of definitive baseline data means that we do not have any recession rates for the
area. In any case, cliffs do not recede in a uniform, regular fashion. As a general rule, the
rate of recession of cliff-faces will be a very slow process, until such time as a high-energy
storm event causes much larger areas than normal to be torn away. Erosion of hard shoreline

24
tends to occur in occasional, unpredictable events, where large chunks of rock, after many
years of being acted upon by waves, will suddenly give way in an extreme event (See Figure
42). Measuring and predicting these events is exceedingly difficult due to their sporadic and
unpredictable nature. (Del Rio and Gracia 2009)
1.6 International and National Policy on Response to Coastal Erosion
Ireland has not taken a strong stance on coastal management, except to monitor development
through planning regulations. General policies from Europe give guidance, but are not really
brought into action (Cooper and Cummins 2009, Cummins et al. 2004, Cummins and
McKenna 2010) . In some areas where houses, roads, or other services are under threat from
erosion, sea-defences have been built as a mitigation measure. It is now accepted that hard
engineering solutions can exacerbate erosion problems by deflecting the wave energy from
the protected area to the adjacent shorelines. These areas, particularly when they consist of
soft cliffs, can deteriorate at a much quicker rate that they would have naturally (Cummins et
al. 2004).
In preference to the development of sea-defences, current policy in coastal zone management
favours retreat in areas where low population density and the inevitability of erosion make
mitigation measures impractical (LIFE et al., Cooper and Cummins 2009, Cummins and
McKenna 2010).
1.6.1 Vulnerability rating as a way of informing policy
Many different indices have been developed to assess the vulnerability of areas of coastline.
Physical indices and socio-economic indices will be blended in a matrix to generate
vulnerability ratings for this study (Del Rio and Gracia 2009, McLaughlin et al. 2002).
Physical indices take into account the topography, geology, aspect in relation to the prevailing
conditions, climate, and exposure. They attempt to make a prediction on the most likely areas

25
to erode. Indices developed in Cadiz, Spain are transferrable to the North Atlantic coastline,
and can be of relevance here. The hazard/impact/risk model used in the Cadiz study (Del Rio
and Gracia 2009) is used as a vulnerability matrix for this project. This takes into account
variables such as cliff lithology, cliff structure, cliff slope, protective beach, rocky shore
platform, engineering structures at cliff foot, tidal range, exposure to storm wave fronts,
difference between storm and modal wave height, relative sea-level trend and rainfall.
Most socio-economic indices are designed around densely populated areas which bear no
resemblance to the study area. The University of Coleraine has produced a socio-economic
index that is designed around a similar coastline type, with culturally similar characteristics
(McLaughlin et al. 2002). This socio-economic vulnerability classification index incorporates
settlement, cultural heritage, roads, railways, land use and designated conservation areas as
variables, and is modified slightly in this study to identify valuable coastal sites.
1.7 Summary of the key points found in the literature.
Coastal erosion is a natural process. It can have serious impacts, which are difficult to
predict. These impacts are predicted to increase with Climate Change. Integrated Coastal
Management Zone policy can only be improved by a greater understanding of the complex
dynamics, and by employing relatively simple models for assessing vulnerability.
In order to assess the vulnerability of the study area, primary data will be collected from a
systematic field study. The data gathered, along with secondary data taken from maps, charts,
oblique imagery and orthophotographs, will be used to generate vulnerability ratings for the
study area. The results will be presented visually using digital mapping techniques and
statistical analysis.

26
2.0 Methodology
The survey consisted of several separate stages.
2.1 Preparatory and planning stage
Maps (OSI 2012) and charts (UKHO 1979, UKHO 2006) were consulted. These
conventional sources gave a contextual overview of the area, including population density,
infrastructure, topography, nature of the coastline and offshore bathymetry.
2.1.1 Boat survey - 21st September, 2014
A preliminary survey was undertaken by boat. The area between Raughley and Streedagh,
including Innismurray, was photographed. (See Appendix I for map and photographs). The
boat was not exclusively available for survey work, and the speed and exact route of the
passage did not allow for taking detailed photographs. Compounding this, the morning sun in
the east put the shoreline in silhouette, eliminating the required detail from the photographs
(see Figure 9). The resulting photographs did not justify further boat surveys, but were a
helpful familiarisation exercise, gave a unique perspective on the project and informed the
final choice of survey area.
Figure 9 - Photograph of shoreline at Lislarry, County Sligo, taken from boat survey on September 21st, 2014, showing shoreline in
silhouette, without adequate detail for analysis (Photo - Eithne Davis)

27
The advantages of being able to survey from afloat are the speed at which the survey could
potentially be done, and an ability to access sheer sea-cliffs, as practiced in the Irish Sea Cliff
Survey (Barron et al. 2011). However, only very short stretches of the coastline were
inaccessible from a beach, and the vast majority of these were easily photographed from an
adjacent headland. The same information could be garnered from the OPW Oblique Imagery
(OPW 2003), in a process currently being used in other, similar surveys in Northern Ireland
and Newfoundland and Labrador. (Storey et al. March 2015, Ní Cheallacháin March 2015,
Westley March 2015)
Figure 10 - A section of the same stretch of coastline as photographed from boat survey, taken from the Helicopter Survey of
Ireland. (OPW 2003)
2.1.2 Preliminary desktop survey; Choice of study area and scheduling of surveys -
September, October 2014
From a detailed review of maps and charts, and an afloat survey of the entire area, exact
locations for the study were chosen. The criteria used in choosing sites were accessibility,
ability to cover the area on foot in a 6-hour walk (or less), and the presence of interesting
features and/or geology. Two discreet sample sites were chosen, as illustrated in Figure 11
below; the Raughley peninsula and the length of coastline from Lislarry to Streedagh.

28
Figure 11 - Orthophotograph of North County Sligo, showing survey areas highlighted in red.(Google 2015)
This stretch of coastline is particularly varied in its nature and aspect, and no detailed
scientific studies were available on the specifics of the nature and resilience of the coastline,
although there is anecdotal evidence of erosion after every major storm event.
The stretch of coastline is highly embayed, with lengths of coast being exposed from all
points of the compass, and therefore exposed to both the prevailing winds and more
infrequent winds.
As with most of the coast along the North-east Atlantic seaboard, this area is subject to high
energy storms (met.ie 2015a, met.ie 2015b) and a tidal range of up to 4.5metres (Marine.ie
2015).
Land-use in the area is varied. The majority is agricultural, and population density is low.
There are three different designations in effect; SAC, SPA and pNHA (NPWS 2015).

29
2.1.3 Risk assessment and equipment
Before any field work could take place, a risk assessment was completed and a safety plan
written. The remote and unpredictable nature of coastal work necessitated certain precautions
to be put in place, including the provision of a route plan to be left with a responsible person,
no solitary work, a qualified first-aider present, a means of communication in case of
emergencies, and the use of appropriate PPE within 3m of water.
2.1.4 Field data sheets
Field data sheets were designed according to standard guidelines (Fossitt 2007) to record the
physical features of the shoreline, and tested in an unrelated location. Space was left for
comments on features of interest not included in datasheet. (See Appendix IV for completed
data sheets)
2.1.5 Equipment
The entire study was undertaken using minimal resources, primarily a Garmin Etrex GPS,
mobile phone, first aid kit and PPE . An equipment list was incorporated into the field data
sheets.
2.2 Field survey to identify areas of recent erosion - October 2014
The field survey took place over 2 discreet sites, walking the shoreline to identify areas of
recent erosion. Recent erosion was deemed to have taken place where pioneer species had not
yet established themselves, and bare soil was visible. This implied that the area had
experienced erosion during the extreme weather events of 2013/2014 (Met.ie, Gleeson March
2015, Met.ie 2015, Hickey March 2015). The exact location of the eroded areas was recorded
by GPS, and a field data sheet used to record the physical characteristics of the site.
Photographs were taken at each eroded location, using a Nikon D-90 DSLR camera, and the
reference numbers from the camera recorded on the field data sheets. See Appendices II and
III for photographs.

30
2.2.1 Recording the results of the field survey
Using satellite imagery (Microsoft 2015a) in ArcGIS (ESRI), a detailed shapefile of the
vegetation line for the study area was created (Figure 12). To create this vegetation line, points
were taken at <10m intervals along the straighter lengths of coastline, and at 1-3m intervals
along the more embayed, complex stretches of coastline. This vegetation line served as a
basemap for all the subsequent GIS analysis.
Figure 12 - Detailed shapefile of North County Sligo, as
drawn in ArcGIS(ESRI) from the World Imagery basemap
(Microsoft 2015a), with vertices drawn at 1 - 10m intervals
Figure 13 - Discrepancies in some GPS recorded positions
became apparent when digitising data. With reference to
photographs and field data sheets, co-ordinates were
anchored to vegetation line to create accurate records
The results of the field survey were mapped using ArcGIS. Separate shapefiles were created
for each of the survey areas, anchoring the GPS points to the closest corresponding point on
the shapefile of the vegetation line, as illustrated in Figure 13. These field survey shapefiles
were used to indicate eroded and non-eroded areas.

31
2.3 Desktop survey to examine the susceptibility of the coastline to erosion,
and the socio-economic vulnerability of the backshore; January - February
2015
2.3.1 Desktop resources available for interpretation in a risk matrix
The increasing availability of reputable mapping resources online allows the area to be
studied at a level of detail that until recently was not available to the public in one place. This
allows for the study of a detailed geographic area from many different perspectives and
disciplines, facilitating studies which would previously have been impractical in terms of time
and resources.
A preliminary desktop assessment of the coastline informed the choice of study area and gave
a general overview of physical, biological and cultural features.
The main sources of imagery used in the desktop survey were as follows:
1. Maps, both traditional format (OSI 2012) and online (OSI 2014b, GSI 2015, NPWS
2015, NMS 2014)
2. Oblique photographs (OPW 2003)
3. Orthophotographs (Microsoft 2015a, Microsoft 2015b, Google 2015)
4. Nautical charts; both traditional format (UKHO 1979, UKHO 2006) and online
applications (Navionics 2014).
5. Historic maps were consulted to locate specific field boundaries and other features of
reference (OSI 2014b) when further details or clarification were needed to identify
exact locations.

32
Figure 14 - Oblique imagery (OPW 2003) compared to historic 6' maps (OSI 2014b) to identify exact location with reference to field
boundaries, roads, and old buildings
2.3.2 Methods used to record a systematic desktop survey
The chosen study areas were surveyed by desktop methods at 1:250. A "desktop" point
shapefile was created, starting at the southerly most extreme of each area, and points were
recorded at 250m intervals along the vegetation line basemap for both of the survey areas.
Each of these points was then surveyed visually using the methods described below.
These areas were surveyed, and shapefiles incorporating a detailed attribute created. The
attributes were assessed from the oblique imagery of the OPW coastal helicopter survey, the
satellite images, maps and charts.
2.3.3 Cliff Hazard Index
The factors in the following matrix were entered as field headings in an attribute table in each
of the shapefiles, and the appropriate numerical values recorded. (See Appendix V for
attribute tables) A further field was created to record the cumulative total for the hazard
indices at each point. Any location scoring higher than the median value for cumulative total
was deemed to be at high risk of erosion.

33
CLIFF HAZARD INDEX
Factor 1 2 3 4
Cliff Lithology Plutonic,
volcanic,
resistant
metamorphics
Limestones,
sandstones,
conglomerates
Non-resistant
metamorphics, fine
consolidated
sediments, coarse
unconsolidated
sediments
Fine unconsolidated
materials
Cliff structure No significant
discontinuities
Alternate sequences
of soft and hard
materials
Isolated gullies
and/or evident
groundwater flow
and/or moderate
cracks/joints/faults
Coastal badlands
and/or dense
cracks/joints/faults
Cliff slope Slope b25° Slope 26°–50° Slope 51°–75° Slope N75°
Protective
beach
Wide/high
beach (waves
reach the cliff
at spring tides
coinciding
with storm
surges)
Intermediate beach
(waves reach the
cliff at spring
tides or during
storm surges)
Narrow/low beach
(waves reach the
cliff during daily
high tide)
No beach
Rocky shore
platform
Wide,
continuous
intertidal
rocky shore
platform
Narrow,
discontinuous
intertidal rocky
shore platform
Submerged rocky
shore platform
No rocky shore
platform
Engineering
structures at
cliff foot
Seawall or
revetment at
the cliff foot
(whole)
Not considered Seawall or
revetment at the cliff
foot (partial)
No structure at cliff
foot
Tidal range Hypertidal
(MSTR N6
m)
Macrotidal (MSTR
4–6 m)
Mesotidal (MSTR
2–4 m)
Microtidal (MSTR
b2 m)
Exposure to
storm
wave fronts
Roughly
shore-normal
storm wave
fronts (angle
81°–90°)
Angle 46°–80° Angle 11°–45° Shoreline subparallel
to main storm wave
fronts
(angle b10°)
Difference
between storm
and modal
wave height
Difference
b0.5 m
Difference 0.5 m–2
m
Difference 2 m–3.5
m
Difference N3.5 m
Relative sea-
level trend
Change b−1
mm/yr (RSL
fall)
Change−1 mm/yr to
+1 mm/yr (RSL
stable)
Change+1 mm/yr to
+2.5 mm/yr (RSL
moderately rising)
Change N+2.5
mm/yr (RSL
strongly rising)
Rainfall Mean annual
precipitation
b500 mm
Mean annual
precipitation 500–
1000 mm
Mean annual
precipitation 1000–
1500 mm
Mean annual
precipitation N1500
mm
Figure 15 - Hazard index, developed in Cadiz, Spain, assigning a numerical value to the physical factors that contribute to the
stability of cliffs (Del Rio and Gracia 2009).

34
As the points being recorded were limited to one continuous piece of coastline, the following
factors were left out of the attribute table, as the values were identical at each point.
 Tidal range (Macrotidal, MSTR 4-6m)(Marine.ie 2015)
 Difference between storm and modal wave height (<3.5m)(Met.ie 2015)
 Relative sea-level trend (1mm/yr) (ICCC 2004)
 Rainfall (1,000-1,400mm/yr) (met.ie 2014)
Oblique photography (OPW 2003)and orthophotographs (Microsoft 2015a, Microsoft 2015b,
Google 2015) were used to populate the fields in the attribute table according to a visual
examination of each location. See Appendix V for attribute tables..
2.3.4 Interpretation of matrix during the desktop survey
The matrix used (Figure 15) provided very clear parameters for the various hazard indices, and
a significant amount of time was spent on familiarisation and interpretation of the various
factors from the orthophotographs and oblique images.
2.3.5 Calculation of exposure to storm wave fronts
In order to determine exposure to storm wave fronts, the aspect from each point was measured
using the course-plotting tool in the Navionics web app (Navionics 2014)
Figure 16 - The aspect of each of the points along the coastline measured using the Navionics course-plotting tool (Navionics 2014) in
order to calculate the exposure to storm wave fronts.

35
The heading measured was then used in the following calculation (Figure 17), derived directly
from the above Cliff Hazard Index (Figure 15). From consultation with several regular water-
users from different disciplines, local knowledge puts the most common direction of swell to
be 250⁰T. This implies that a shoreline with an aspect of 250⁰ would be at a 90⁰ angle to the
prevailing storm swell, and be considered to be "shore-normal" (SN). Therefore, for this
coastline, SN = 250°. While it is recognised that some of the most damaging storms come
from different directions, the scope of this particular survey only allowed for the prevailing
direction to be taken into account.
Hazard
rating
Min
Angle
SN - Max
extent
SN + Max
extent
1 81° -
90°
241° - 259°
2 46° -
80°
SN +/- 10° -
44°
250° +/- 10° -
44°
206° - 240° 260° -
294°
3 45° -
79°
SN +/- 11° -
45°
250° +/- 11° -
45°
171° - 205° 295°- 329°
4 <10° SN < +/- 80° 250° < +/- 80 >330° <170°
Figure 17 - Table showing calculations used to apply hazard ratings to points on the coastline according to the angle of their
exposure to storm wave fronts coming from 250°.
Aspect from Shoreline Hazard rating
<170° 4
171° - 205° 3
206° - 240° 2
241° - 259° 1
260° - 294° 2
295° - 329° 3
>330° 4
Figure 18 - Resulting table assigning hazard ratings to the "exposure to storm wave fronts" field for each point on the desktop
shapefile according to its aspect. (Assuming the most common storm wave front to come from 250°)

36
2.3.6 Socio-Economic Vulnerability Index
The factors in the following matrix were then entered as field headings in an attribute table
(see Appendix V) in each of the shapefiles, and the appropriate numerical value recorded at
each point. A further field was created to record the cumulative total for the vulnerability
indices at each point. Any location scoring above the median value was deemed to be of high
socio-economic value.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY INDEX
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Settlement No Settlement Village Small Town Large Town City
Cultural
Heritage
Absent Present
Roads Absent R- class Motorway
Railway Absent Present
Landuse Water bodies
Marsh/bog
and moor
Sparsely
vegetated
areas
Bare rocks
Natural
grasslands
Coastal areas
Forest Agriculture Urban and
Industrial
Infrastructure
Designated
conservation
areas
Absent Present
Figure 19 - Socio-economic vulnerability index, chosen because of its relevance to local factors and used to assign a numerical value
to the coastal land. Some features have been modified for local factors, specifically the roads and designated conservation areas
classifications, which were originally designed for UK-specific use. (McLaughlin et al. 2002).
The socio-economic features were directly entered into the attribute table of an ArcGIS
shapefile (ESRI) under their appropriate field headings. The data was interpreted from the
same visual resources as the hazards (OPW 2003, OSI 2014b), as well as the National
Monuments Service (NMS 2014), the National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS 2015) and the
Guide to Habitats (Fossitt 2007).
2.3.7 Review of the OPW Erosion maps
The Erosion Maps as available from the OPW (RPSGroup 2014, OPW 2013) were geo-
referenced against the basemap, and a further shapefile drawn to show the areas considered to
be at risk of erosion according to the policy makers and planners.

37
2.4 Analysis of results using GIS software - completed in stages between
November 2014 and February 2015
Once the data collection was complete, the results were analysed using the attributes functions
in ArcGIS. Exported shapefiles were generated isolating the following:
1. Eroded areas from the field survey
2. High risk areas for erosion from the desktop survey
3. Sites of highest socio-economic value from the desktop survey
4. OPW predictions of future erosion
These shapefiles were used to generate maps comparing the results of the desktop survey with
the actual erosion recorded on the ground. Further maps were then generated identifying the
areas of high socio-economic value which were at the most threat of erosion, and the areas
highlighted by planners as susceptible to erosion.
Length of recorded erosion was generated in GIS field survey shapefile.
2.5 Return site visits - February 2015
Following further storms in December 2014, return visits to 2 specific sites (Stáid Abbey and
Raughley) to observe any further changes. Both sites were again photographed for
comparison. Minor deterioration was observed at Stáid Abbey, and some vegetative growth,
but no further deterioration was noted at Raughley in these quick spot checks.

38
3.0 Results
3.0.1 All sample sites
For the purposes of this survey, two areas were chosen for analysis, as previously illustrated
in Figure 4. The cumulative total area for the survey was measured at 11.5 km from the
vegetation line basemap.
The Raughley field survey covered 3.75km. Of this, 12 different locations showed signs of
erosion, with a cumulative length of 2.59km (Figure 20).
The Lislarry to Streedagh field survey covered 7.75km. Of this, 27 different locations showed
signs of erosion, with a cumulative length of 3.1km (Figure 21).
In the desktop survey, 16 points were analysed in Raughley and 31 in the Lislarry to
Streedagh area, giving a total of 47 data points in an 11.5 km stretch (Figure 23).

39
3.1 Field Survey
3.1.2 Erosion in Raughley
Figure 20 - Map illustrating the areas where erosion was
recorded in ground-surveying the Raughley area
3.1.3 Erosion in Streedagh
Figure 21 - Map illustrating the areas where erosion was
recorded in ground-surveying the Lislarry to Streedagh area
In a visual representation of the eroded areas, it is clear that erosion is present along the entire
coast, and not confined to those stretches of coastline that would be considered to be the most
exposed.
Area Total length (km) Length of erosion*
(km)
% of total
Raughley 3.75 2.59 69%
Lislarry to Streedagh 7.75 3.1 40%
Total survey area 11.5 5.69 49%
Figure 22 - Table quantifying the actual erosion recorded in the field. *Because this study was focussing on hard shoreline, dune
systems were not recorded, therefore this result is a conservative estimate.
As can be seen from Figure 22 above, 49% of this coastline has been subject to erosion during
the winter of 2013/14.

40
3.2 Desktop Survey
Figure 23 - During the desktop survey, a total of 47 sites were recorded, 16 in Raughley and 31 between Lislarry and Streedagh
3.2.1 Raughley
Figure 24 - Sites surveyed by desktop methods on Raughley peninsula, taken at 250m intervals

41
Comparison between field and desktop surveys
Figure 25 - Locations of recent erosion identified in field
survey of Raughley
Figure 26 - High risk sites identified in desktop survey
overlaid with locations of erosion identified in field survey of
Raughley
Comparison between the field survey and desktop survey results of Raughley show a high
level of accuracy in predicting areas susceptible to erosion from the hazard indices. Figure 26
above shows all of the predicted high-risk areas except one to be concurrent with recorded
erosion on the ground. Only one site which was predicted to be at high risk showed no
significant proof of erosion.

42
3.2.2 Streedagh
Figure 27 - Sites surveyed by desktop methods in the Lislarry to Streedagh area, taken at 250m intervals

43
Comparison between field and desktop surveys
Figure 28- Locations of recent erosion identified in field
survey of Lislarry to Streedagh
Figure 29 - High risk sites identified in desktop survey
overlaid with locations of erosion identified in field survey of
Lislarry to Streedagh
In Figure 29 above of the Lislarry to Streedagh section, 4 points show high risk of erosion
without any recorded incidents on the ground. These areas are actually dunes, which did not
fall into the survey remit, and being naturally mobile systems were not recorded on the
ground as erosion.
When these points are ignored (most southerly 3 points and the 4th point from the north of the
map), all other predictions are accurate. The desktop survey was inclined to underestimate
the extent of erosion.

44
3.3 Socio-economic vulnerability
3.3.1 Raughley
Figure 30 - Sites with a socio-economic rating higher than
the median value in the Raughley peninsula
Figure 31- Sites with a rating above the median values for
both high risk of erosion and high socio-economic value
Figure 30 above shows 11 sites in Raughley which are considered to have a high socio-
economic value from the desktop survey, identified as priority locations for assessment in any
policy-making decisions.
The next map, Figure 31, shows the 8 sites of high socio-economic value which also coincide
with a high risk of erosion.
The Raughley peninsula is a small area (3.75km in shoreline) with a long history of habitation
and a significant harbour. It also has two sites listed as National Monuments, one of which, a
midden, at site R08 (Figure 43) was discovered and recorded as a result of this survey.

45
3.3.2 Lislarry to Streedagh
Figure 32 - Sites with a socio-economic rating higher than
the median value in the Lislarry to Streedagh area
Figure 33 - Sites with a rating above the median values for
both high risk of erosion and high socio-economic value
By selecting only sites with a socio-economic rating higher than the median value, Figure 32
above identifies 13 locations from the Lislarry to Streedagh survey as priority locations for
assessment in any policy-making decisions.
Figure 33 further narrows down 6 sites of high socio-economic value which also coincide with
a high risk of erosion. These are the sites which this survey would highlight for most urgent
observation. The Lislarry to Streedagh survey area, measuring 7.75km from the vegetation
line shapefile, is more extensive than that at Raughley. It also contains more mobile dune
systems and is not as directly influenced by human activity.

46
Stáid Abbey
Site S02 is the only location along the coast for which we have historic recession rates. The
site is the location of a medieval chapel, Stáid Abbey, which is regularly surveyed to monitor
its distance from the shoreline. The shoreline at Stáid has receded 19m since the 1830s OS
maps were drawn (OSI 2014b), and 19m since total station surveys of the site began in 1994
(Beglane March 2015).

47
3.4 Analysis of 6 most at-risk, high-value sites, implying high priority
locations
3.4.1 Raughley area
Site ref Reasons for high-risk status Reasons for high-vulnerability status
R02
Risk=23
Vuln=16
Lithology: 4
Fine, unconsolidated materials
Settlement: 2
Village
Structure: 1
Continuous
Cultural heritage: 1
Absent
Slope: 2
Moderate slope
Roads: 3
R-class
Protective Beach: 4
No beach
Land use: 5
Infrastructure
Rocky shore platform: 4
No rocky shore platform
Designated conservation area: 5
Natura 2000 site
Engineering structures foot of cliff: 4
No structure at cliff-foot
Exposure to storm wave fronts: 4
Shoreline sub-parallel to storm wave fronts
R06
Risk=23
Vuln=16
Lithology: 4
Settlement: 2
Village
Structure: 1
Continuous
National monument
Slope: 4
Sheer
Roads: 1
None
Protective Beach: 2
Waves reaching cliff during spring tides or
storm surges
Land use: 4
Narrow, discontinuous, intertidal
Natura 2000 site
Shallow angle
R07
Risk=24
Vuln=16
Lithology: 4
Settlement: 2
Village
Structure: 3
Alternate hard and soft materials
National monument
Slope: 4
Sheer
Roads: 1
None
Protective Beach: 2
storm surges
Land use: 4
Infrastructure
Natura 2000 site
Figure 34 - An analysis of the 3 highest-scoring sites in the Raughley survey for combined hazard and vulnerability ratings

48
3.4.2 Lislarry to Streedagh area
Site ref Reasons for high-risk status Reasons for high-vulnerability status
S02
Risk=23
Vuln=13
Lithology: 4
Settlement: 1
No settlement
Structure: 3
Alternate hard and soft materials
National monument
Slope: 4
Sheer
Roads: 1
None
Protective Beach: 2
storm surges
Land use: 4
Agriculture
None
Engineering structures at foot of cliff: 4
S03
Risk=22
Vuln=12
Lithology: 4
Settlement: 1
No settlement
Structure: 2
Fine, consolidated materials
None
Slope: 4
Sheer
Roads: 1
None
Protective Beach: 1
Waves reach cliff only with spring tides
coinciding with storm surges
Land use: 4
Agriculture
Natura 2000 site
Slightly wider angle than shore-normal
S04
Risk=22
Vuln=14
Lithology: 2
Limestone
Settlement: 1
No settlement
Structure: 1
Continuous
National monument
Slope: 4
Sheer
Roads: 1
None
Protective Beach: 3
Waves reach cliff during daily high tide
Land use: 2
Natural grasslands
Natura 2000 site
Figure 35 - An analysis of the 3 highest-scoring sites in the Lislarry to Streedagh survey for combined hazard and vulnerability
ratings

49
3.4.3 Common influencing factors of high priority sites from both locations
Factor Rating No. of sites
Lithology 1 0
2 1
3 0
4 5
Structure 1 3
2 1
3 2
4 0
Slope 1 0
2 1
3 0
4 5
Protective beach 1 1
2 3
3 1
4 1
Rocky shore
platform
1 0
2 0
3 3
4 3
Engineering
structures at cliff
foot
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 6
Exposure to storm
wave fronts
1 0
2 1
3 1
4 4
Figure 36 - Table showing occurrence of hazard factors in
the 6 most high value, at risk sites
Factor Rating No. of sites
Lithology 1 0
2 1
3 0
4 5
Structure 1 3
2 1
3 2
4 0
Slope 1 0
2 1
3 0
4 5
Protective beach 1 1
2 3
3 1
4 1
Rocky shore
platform
1 0
2 0
3 3
4 3
Engineering
structures at cliff
foot
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 6
Exposure to storm
wave fronts
1 0
2 1
3 1
4 4
Figure 37 - Table showing occurrence of socio-economic
factors in the 6 most high value, at risk sites
Figure 36 gives a brief overview of the 6 highest priority sites, the most common physical
characteristics displayed are fine, unconsolidated material, a sheer gradient on the cliff-face,
lack of a protective rocky shore platform, lack of any engineered protection, and a sub-
parallel exposure to storm wave fronts. None of the priority sites have coastal protection
measures.
The most common socio-economic features represented in Figure 37 are cultural heritage (i.e.
the presence of a National Monument), agricultural land-use, and Natura 2000 designated
status. All of the priority sites fall within Natura 2000 areas.

50
3.5 Policy and planning maps
Figure 38 - Section from the OPW erosion risk map,
georeferenced to the vegetation line shapefile, with yellow
polygons illustrating the areas identified to be at risk of
erosion
Figure 39 - Areas identified as being of high risk and high
value from this survey, compared with the areas identified in
the OPW erosion risk map
Figure 40 - Section from the OPW erosion risk map,
georeferenced to the vegetation line shapefile, with yellow
polygons illustrating the areas identified to be at risk of
erosion
Figure 41 - Areas identified as being of high risk and high
value from this survey, compared with the areas identified in
the OPW erosion risk map

51
The areas of interest highlighted in the OPW Erosion maps (RPSGroup 2014), when
compared with the desktop survey, don't show a distinct relation to areas identified in this
study as being of high priority. The exception to this is the harbour at Raughley, shown
between points R04 and R05 in Figure 39.

52
4.0 Discussion
4.1 Main findings from study
The results of the field survey, where the length of eroded coastline was quantified, showed
that 49% of this coastline had proof of erosion in the winter of 2013/2014. Put into the
context of the literature available, 70% of coastlines globally and 20% of the Irish coastline is
considered to be at risk of erosion. Generally, only coast that is being affected by
anthropogenic activity is considered "at risk". It is difficult to extract anthropogenic effects
from natural influences on coastal erosion, as it is accepted that human activity is the main
driver of climate change with its associated implications for more frequent and severe extreme
weather events and rising sea-levels.
Whether or not the results of this study are directly comparable with official research, the
49% figure is significantly higher than the accepted national figure. This is not entirely
surprising, as the area was chosen specifically because of its high-energy, embayed nature and
the complexity of its coastline. It can be expected to be more exposed, and therefore more
vulnerable to erosion in extreme weather events than other coastal areas, such as those on the
eastern seaboard, the lower results of which would have an influence on the national average.
The main findings of interest, (as highlighted in section 3.4.3) from the desktop survey were
the strong influence of lithology, gradient, and the angle of the coastline against approaching
storm wave on the level of damage to the cliff-face. The desktop methods employed
highlighted factors (discussed below) which, when combined, can lead to a much higher risk
of that coastline being damaged by meteorological events.

53
4.2 Comparison between field survey and desktop survey
4.2.1 Raughley
The peninsula of Raughley has a long history of human activity in the form of agricultural and
maritime cultures. The geology of the peninsula includes a tombolo which shows that the
peninsula was once an island, and has therefore been long influenced by erosion and
deposition. The field survey showed that 69% of the coast has been recently eroded (Figure
20). The peninsula supports a small village, an active harbour, and the main land-use is
agricultural. It is therefore not surprising that, overall, this site displayed a higher socio-
economic rating than that of the Lislarry to Streedagh site.
The Raughley site showed very high levels of erosion in proximity to sea-defences; areas
which, by their nature, are of high socio-economic value, such as roads, harbours and
settlements. This evidence of erosion was mainly on the eastern side of the peninsula. While
this area is sheltered from the prevailing marine influences, it is made up of relatively soft,
unconsolidated material, and is at a sub-parallel angle to the prevailing conditions, a factor
which contributes strongly to scouring rates and longshore drift.
The northern side of the peninsula showed definite evidence of sudden, catastrophic collapse
of rocky shoreline, a risk which was anticipated by the desktop survey (see Figure 31). The
evidence of this was the discovery of a prehistoric midden in a section of collapsed cliff. On
the initial survey in September 2014, the midden area was clear of any vegetative growth,
while a return visit the following January showed that vegetation had already begun to
establish itself on the bare rock.

54
Figure 42 - Rock collapse at site R08 on Raughley peninsula.
(Photo by Ciarán Davis)
Figure 43 - Freshly exposed prehistoric midden material
behind collapsed cliff face at site R08. (Photo by Ciarán
Davis)
4.2.2 Lislarry to Streedagh
This more northerly site was more extensive (7.75km in length), and showed frequent
incidents of erosion (40% of site), albeit often in short (<5m) stretches. The high-priority
sites identified from the desktop survey correlated very clearly with those seen in the field
survey, where catastrophic damage was visually evident (see Figure 29). In particular the site
at Stáid Abbey (discussed in separate section below) is a good example of combined high risk
factors along with high socio-economic significance.
Overall, the results of the field and desktop surveys were very compatible in both survey sites,
highlighting the same priority locations.

55
4.2.3 Analysis of the 6 sites of highest priority
The data gathered for the study was collated in spreadsheet format. After some thought and
consultation, it was decided that the scope of the study was adequately served by the outputs
from ArcGIS. The data is available in the appendices of this report should an opportunity
arise for statistical analysis. Logistical regression would be a suitable method of determining
the hazard factors with the greatest influence on erosion, but is beyond the scope of this study.
A brief comparison of the 3 highest priority sites from each area when combined gave a rough
indication of what could be the most influencing factors. (See Figure 36, Figure 37)
Most common influencing physical risk factors
Of the 6 cliff sites, 4 were exposed at a sub-parallel angle to the prevailing storm waves, 5
were made of fine, unconsolidated material and 5 had a sheer gradient. All 6 were without
engineering (sea-defences) in place.
Given current thinking on the damaging influence of hard engineering solution on adjoining
stretches of coastline, it may be appropriate to consider altering the index ratings for this in
the hazard matrix. Particularly on a coastline which has very few sea-defences, the level of
importance attached to this may be skewing the results somewhat.
Most common influencing socio-economic factors
Of the 6 sites, 4 were in proximity to National Monuments, 5 were bordering a road, 4 cited
agriculture as the main land-use, and all 6 were in Natura 2000 sites.
It is debatable whether being part of a designated conservation area should have such a high
influence on the results, given that coastal erosion is a natural geomorphological process and a
characteristic feature of the habitats under protection by these designations.

56
4.3 Difficulties in geospatial interpretation
4.3.1 Inconsistencies in spatial data
The vegetation shapefile that was created in ArcGIS was necessary to give consistency to the
results. Initially it was thought that useful information could be extrapolated from comparing
orthophotographs from different years. The angle from which the image was captured, the
projection of the image into an orthophotograph, and the different light levels and shadows in
the orthophotographs meant that some areas appeared to have extended rather than eroded.
The practicalities of walking the shoreline meant that accurately recording the vegetation line
with a hand-held GPS was not possible. When these points were plotted into ArcGIS there
were natural inconsistencies in the shapefiles. This was overcome by interpreting the data
into a separate shapefile, anchoring the GPS points to the vegetation line (See Figure 44). This
method allowed accurate interpretation of the field data.
The Irish Coastal Helicopter photographs were taken in 2003, their accuracy may be
becoming dated. The increasing availability of drones and the development of
photogrammetry as an environmental monitoring tool should be considered when updating
the current resource.

57
4.3.2 Coastline Paradox
The inherent difficulties in measuring coastlines as explained by the Coastline Paradox
hypothesis (Mandlebrot 1967) was overcome by the choice of the vegetation line as the
consistent baseline for all measurements, as illustrated by figures 45 and 46 below.
Figure 44 - A map illustrating discrepancies between the
shoreline as recorded in the relatively small scale County
Map (OSI 2014b) and the vegetation line drawn from
orthophotographs(Microsoft 2015a)
Figure 45 - At larger scales, lack of detail becomes even more
evident

58
4.4 Use of indices
It is important to remember that these indices were taken from two different sources, one from
Cadiz, Spain, and one from Northern Ireland. They may not be designed to consider the
specific conditions in this region, but it is important to have consistency in assessing
environmental impacts in different regions. While some of the factors may seem redundant in
the context of this study, they may be highly relevant should the same study be repeated in a
different location.
4.4.1 Hazard Indices
Cliff Lithology
Much of the shoreline is made up of glacial till on a limestone bedrock (GSI 2015). Wherever
there has been previous erosion, the unconsolidated soil is exposed and being stripped from
its limestone platform. In this way, the vegetation line is receding, while the remaining
limestone protects the land from inundation.
Cliff Structure
Continuous, un-fragmented cliff-faces allow the energy of the waves to glance off the
shoreline, while in contrast, faults and gullies allow purchase for wind and water, providing a
suitable environment for physical and chemical weathering.
Cliff Slope
The effect of gravity on cliff-fall increases with the height and gradient of the cliff-face, and is
one of the most common features found in the vulnerable sites in this study. A sheer slope
combined with unconsolidated lithology can greatly influence the resilience of the cliff.

59
Protective beach
As waves run up a sandy or pebble beach much of their energy is absorbed by the sediments,
and the impact on the cliff is greatly reduced.
Rocky shore platform
Karstic limestone makes up most of the foreshore in this area. Terracing of the coastal rock
formations helps to absorb wave energy and disperse it before it hits the shore. The impact of
this often causes the familiar spray of seawater rising up on the horizon during storm surges
and heavy sea swells.
Engineering structures at cliff foot
This area does not have a significant number of sea-defences, except in a small section of the
Raughley area. The hazard matrix assigns the highest rating to shore with no engineering
structures. As the matrix was designed in a more densely developed region, this may be more
appropriate in other geographical locations. In the context of this study, the presence of
engineering structures greatly increases the susceptibility of the nearby, undefended coastline,
speeding up erosion in adjacent sites. This is a factor that should be reviewed for further
studies.
Tidal range
Not taken into account for this study, as all sites were under the same influence.
Exposure to storm wave fronts
This factor was quantified according to Figure 17 in the Methodology section, and was an
influencing factor in 4/6 of the vulnerable sites.
Although this study was observing the effects of the 2013/2014 winter storms, the scope only
allowed the prevailing wave direction to be taken into account. This may have strongly
influenced the cumulative hazard rating in various areas. As the coastline tends to be attuned

60
to its prevailing conditions, it is likely that significant weather events that come from
directions other than the prevailing one have a far greater impact.
The calculations used to assess this in the methodology section were deliberately designed to
be easily recalibrated for different conditions. A predicted sea swell from an extreme weather
event can be easily incorporated into the ratings to interpret the potential effect on all the
sample locations. This could have significant implications for coastal management in a
scenario for sea-level rise.
Difference between storm and modal wave height
Relative sea-level trend
Rainfall

61
4.4.2 Socio-economic Indices
Settlement
This parameter takes on a greater significance in urban areas. The rural nature of this area
minimises the effect of settlement on the cumulative ratings for this study.
Cultural heritage
The west coast of Ireland has a very high incidence of archaeological features (NMS 2014),
which is why this parameter had a significant influence on the ratings. In a scenario where
active infrastructure is at risk, it may be difficult to prioritise cultural heritage in a
management plan, but its importance must be acknowledged.
The case study of Stáid Abbey in section 4.6.1 below illustrates this.
Roads
Roads are frequently found hugging coastlines, and are critical to society. Re-alignment
schemes, inconvenience to commuters and road repairs are all very costly. Roads are often
the first place to be defended by engineering, leading to complications in adjacent areas.
Railway
Not taken into account for this study, as none present.
Land use
The majority of this area is under agricultural use. With a rising global population and
Harvest 2020 targets to meet, this makes it high-value land use. Where infrastructure is
present, in the case of harbours, buildings, bridges etc., there is a high value put on land.
Scrubland and coastal badlands are obviously of lesser priority for attention, even though the
ecosystem services they provide may not be wholly recognised.

62
Designated conservation areas
All of the sites that rated in the top 6 priority list were in a Natura 2000 area, which falls into
the highest rating on this matrix. This adjustment was made from the original matrix,
designed for UK use, which allows for a national designation which doesn't exist in Ireland.
The effect of erosion, being a natural process, should have a minimal impact on these sites,
many of which are designated because of their location in the first place. It is highly unlikely
that any action will ever be taken to control erosion in these areas as a result of their
designation.
4.5 Use of OPW Erosion Maps
The results of this study showed very little consistency with the priority areas highlighted in
the OPW Erosion Maps. (Figure 39, Figure 41) This raises concerns for the accuracy of
methods employed, in both this study and the OPW report.
4.5.1 Differing methodologies
The methodology in the OPW study involved taking 25km stretches of coastline and
comparing the orthophotographs from the 1970s with those from 2010 (Casey 2014), a
method which was dismissed at the early stages of this study because of inherent inaccuracies.
Shapefiles were drawn of each, and a probabilistic projection drawn, assuming the same areas
would recede at the same rate. This reactionary method ignores the changing rates of erosion
at play once the existing geology and soil-cover has been compromised by an erosion event or
engineering. Any inaccuracies in this report, which is an advisory document for planning
decisions, could have serious implications for misinformed decisions in the future,
particularly in more densely populated or at-risk areas.
This method ignores the level of detail and the dynamic nature of coastal environments that
was taken into account in this risk-assessment based study. It also raises the question as to

63
why no use was made of the resource that the OPW own in the helicopter survey, which was
publically available at the time that the erosion report was commissioned.
The risk-assessment methods used for this survey gave an extremely high level of detail, with
locations assessed at 250m intervals. This method may or may not be practical for the entire
coastline of Ireland. Only a skill level in human resources would be required, as no
specialised equipment is needed. Individual Local Authorities could benefit from assessing
their coastline at this level. If the OPW revise this report (which is set to predict erosion to
2050), a risk-assessment approach should be considered.
4.6 Limitations on the survey
 There is an increasingly regular update of orthophotographs, but it will take time to
build a historical database of high resolution images suitable for comparative analysis.
This type of information would allow monitoring and appropriate adjustment of
indices.
 Georeferencing on orthophotographs should improve as the technology becomes more
commonplace. There is still a certain amount of distortion obvious on coastlines in
different orthophotographs, limiting their usefulness for analytical purposes.
 The scope of this study didn't allow for in-depth analysis of the cumulative effect of
significant factors in coastal erosion. The data gathered could provide for further
analysis.
 Neither does the scope of this study allow for the analysis of storm events driving
waves from directions other than the prevailing directions. Individual storm cells
increasingly come from other directions. Climate change is altering Jet Stream
activity and has moved the mean storm track northwards by 200km. We cannot
currently accurately predict the cluster of elements that will create future extraordinary
storm events (Hickey March 2015). This limits the results of this study.

64
 New information about the impacts of hard-engineering solutions in coastal defences
has not been taken into account. This could affect the hazard ratings of any areas
protected by engineering, and the adjacent areas.

65
4.6.1 The case study of Stáid Abbey
Stáid Abbey is an ecclesiastical site which has links with the monastic settlement on
Innismurray island. It has an implied connection, through the letters of Captain Francisco De
Cuellar (De Cuellar 1592), with the Spanish Armada ships which were lost off this coast in
1588. The site holds large midden deposits, which are being further washed away with every
storm. A souterrain on the site has already been destroyed, and holds historic graves. As
such it a National Monument with a high level of historic significance.
Stáid Abbey is a unique site in this survey , as it has been monitored for coastal recession
since 1994. This makes it the only site for which recession rates are available. These
recession rates show that the location is subject to catastrophic damage in major storms rather
than continuous linear regression. Recession rates have accelerated dramatically in the last 20
years as storms compromise the vegetative protection and the integrity of the ground, and the
cliff-face is overhung and collapsing. The church is currently (February 2015) 3.8 metres
from the shoreline. The 1830 maps show it at 19 metres from the shoreline (Beglane March
2015).

66
Figure 46 - Eroded shoreline, showing exposed midden material, at Stáid Abbey. The structure dates from the Early Medieval
period, is now 3.8 metres from the shoreline, and is expected to be destroyed by erosion in the next 10 - 20 years. (Photo by Ciarán
Davis)
Despite the significance of this structure, the only plans in place are to monitor and record any
materials exposed by erosion. Sea-defences are inappropriate, and would more than likely be
ineffective in protecting the site. Restoration or relocation of the structure is impractical. It is
expected that this site will be completely lost to erosion in the next 10-20 years.
This scenario will be repeated at many similar locations around the country in the coming
years. Indeed, a recent International conference held highlighted the similarity in issues being
addressed in France, Iceland, Newfoundland, Scotland and England. (Benlloch March 2015,
Pálsdóttir March 2015, Storey et al. March 2015, Dawson March 2015, Timpany March 2015,
Daly March 2015)
It seems little has changed since the 12th Century legend of King Canute and his attempt to
hold back the tide.

67
5.0 Conclusion
The area surveyed for this study shows extensive evidence of recent erosion. With 49% of the
shoreline damaged, the incidence of erosion here is higher than the national recorded average.
This is a natural process, part of the dynamic of the coastal landscape, and a key feature of
this habitat. Indeed, it is erosion that gives the coastline of Ireland it's dramatic landscape
which is considered such an asset. It is only in locations where key socio-economic features
are under threat, or where man-made structures are contributing to the problem that
intervention should be considered.
The methods used here to gather and analyse data appear to have been effective at identifying
key areas which are at risk. An understanding of the individual factors involved can also help
to inform future intervention methods. Mimicking the features that lend a natural resilience to
the shoreline is the most likely approach to give successful results in such a hostile
environment.
Increasing concern and an inherent uncertainty around how climate change will manifest itself
makes it all the more urgent to carefully monitor the effects of extreme weather around our
coasts. Ideally we should put ourselves in a position to take proactive measures to mitigate
against its influence on our infrastructure, settlements and heritage. Difficult decisions will
have to be made in the face of environmental damage, and it is inevitable that we will watch
parts of our cultural heritage which have been a feature of the landscape for hundreds, or even
thousands of years crumble into the sea.
There is a responsibility on the scientific community to provide accurate and timely data and
information on the state of our coastlines, just as there is an onus on policy-makers and
practitioners to act in an informed and responsible, proactive fashion to mitigate against the

68
societal impacts of erosion. A successful Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan should
be an iterative process, under constant review while maintaining focus on a core aim. ICZM
plans should, at the very least, identify highly vulnerable locations and have intelligently
designed procedures in place for managed retreat.
5.1 Recommendations
It is not enough to trial these methods in a single area. Further research is recommended,
particularly investigating the accuracy under different environmental contexts, such as urban
areas. The oblique images provided by the helicopter survey are very useful, but becoming
dated. The increasing accessibility of drone photogrammetry would appear to make it a very
viable option for updating these images, with the added advantage of allowing for
measurement of recession. Over time, a catalogue of 3D data in this form would provide us
with a level of information that has never before been available on the dynamics of coastlines.

69
References
Andrady, A. L. (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. [Review] Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 62 (8), 1596-1605.
Barron, S., Delaney, A., Perrin, P., Martin, J. and O'neill, F. (2011) National survey and
assessment of the conservation status of Irish sea cliffs. Dublin, Ireland: National
Parks and Wildlife Service. (Irish Wildlife Manuals).
Beglane, F. (March 2015) A shore chapel at Staad, County Sligo [Paper presented at the
Weather Beaten Archaeology Conference: Revealing, Concealing & Erasing],
unpublished.
Bemis, S. P., Micklethwaite, S., Turner, D., James, M. R., Akciz, S., Thiele, S. T. and
Bangash, H. A. (2014) Ground-based and UAV-Based photogrammetry: A multi-
scale, high-resolution mapping tool for structural geology and paleoseismology.
Journal of Structural Geology, 69, Part A (0), 163-178.
Benlloch, P. O. (March 2015) Coastal erosion and Public Archaeology in Western France:
recent experiences from the ALeRT Project [Paper presented at the Weather Beaten
Archaeology Conference: Revealing, Concealing & Erasing], unpublished.
Casey, J. (2014). RE: OPW Coastal Protection Unit.
Colomina, I. and Molina, P. (2014) Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote
sensing: A review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 92 (0),
79-97.
Connor, D. W., Brazier, D. P., Hill, T. O. and Northen, K. O. (1997a) Marine
NatureConservation Review: marine biotope classification for Britain and Ireland.
Volume 1. Littoralbiotopes. Version 97.06. 229. (Joint Nature Conservation
Committee Report).
Connor, D. W., Dalkin, M. J., Hill, T. O., Holt, R. H. F. and Sanderson, W. G. (1997b)
Marine Nature Conservation Review: marine biotope classification for Britain and
Ireland. Volume 2.Sublittoral biotopes. Version 97.06. 230. (Joint Nature
Conservation Committee Report).
Cooper, J. A. G. and Cummins, V. (2009) Coastal research and policy integration in
northwest Europe. The COREPOINT project. [Article] Marine Policy, 33 (6), 869-
870.

70
Cooper, J. A. G., Jackson, D. W. T., Navas, F., Mckenna, J. and Malvarez, G. (2004)
Identifying storm impacts on an embayed, high-energy coastline: examples from
western Ireland. Marine Geology, 210 (1-4), 261-280.
Cummins, V. and Mckenna, J. (2010) The potential role of Sustainability Science in coastal
zone management. [Article] Ocean & Coastal Management, 53 (12), 796-804.
Cummins, V., O'mahony, C. and Connolly, N. (2004) Coastal Zone Management Review.
Kilkenny.
Daly, C. (March 2015) The prospects for Ireland's World Heritage in a changed climate
[Paper presented at the Weather Beaten Archaeology Conference: Revealing,
Concealing & Erasing], unpublished.
Dawson, T. (March 2015) Scotland's Coastal Heritage at Risk Project. a citizen science
approach to a national heritage issue [Paper presented at the Weather Beaten
Archaeology Conference: Revealing, Concealing & Erasing], unpublished.
De Cuellar, F. (1592) Captain De Cuellar and the Spanish Armada. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sligoheritage.com/ArchSpanishArmada.htm [Accessed February 20th
2015].
Del Rio, L. and Gracia, F. J. (2009) Erosion risk assessment of active coastal cliffs in
temperate environments. [Article] Geomorphology, 112 (1-2), 82-95.
Dempsey, G. (March 2015) What lies beneath: revealing the cross inscribed stones and cross
slabs of Co. Roscommon using Structure From Motion (SFM) photogrammetry [Paper
presented at the Weather Beaten Archaeology Conference: Revealing, Concealing &
Erasing], unpublished.
Esri. ArcGIS. 10.1 ed.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora 1992. Brussels.
Falaleeva, M., O'mahony, C., Gray, S., Desmond, M., Gault, J. and Cummins, V. (2011)
Towards climate adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland: Integrated architecture
for effective management? Marine Policy, 35 (6), 784-793.
Fossitt, J. A. (2007) Guide to Habitats. Dublin.

71
Furnell, J. and Hull, S. L. (2014) Cliff top habitats provide important alternative feeding
resources for wading birds of conservation importance wintering on non-estuarine
coasts. [Article] Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 139 119-126.
Gleeson, P. (March 2015) Recent evidence of extreme weather impact on our archaeological
heritage. [Paper presented at the Weather Beaten Archaeology Conference -
Revealing, Concealing & Erasing.], unpublished.
Google. (2015) Google Maps [Online]: Google. Available:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@54.3567459,-8.6095508,14304m/data=!3m1!1e3
[Accessed February 23rd 2015].
Gsi. (2015) GSI Datasets Public Viewer [Online]: Department of Communications, Marine
and Natural Resources. Available:
http://spatial.dcenr.gov.ie/imf/imf.jsp?site=GSI_Simple [Accessed February 23rd
2015].
Hall, A. M., Hansom, J. D., Williams, D. M. and Jarvis, J. (2006) Distribution,
geomorphology and lithofacies of cliff-top storm deposits: Examples from the high-
energy coasts of Scotland and Ireland. [Article] Marine Geology, 232 (3-4), 131-155.
Hickey, K. (March 2015) The Storminess Record of Ireland from AD 1500-2014 and Future
Vulnerability [Paper presented at the Weather Beaten Archaeology Conference -
Revealing, Concealing & Erasing], IT Sligo, Sligo, Ireland, unpublished.
Iccc. (2004) Irish Committee on Climate Change: 3rd Scientific Statement: Climate and Sea
Level Change [Online]: Irish Royal Academy. Available:
https://www.ria.ie/getmedia/350b0814-82d0-4186-968b-
f338b4a8e9cc/Climate%20Change/Scientific%20Statements/3rd-Scientific-
Statement.pdf [Accessed October 28th 2014].
Ipcc. (2014) Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Climate Change Synthesis Reports).
Jenny, B. and Hurni, L. (2011) Studying cartographic heritage: Analysis and visualization of
geometric distortions. [Article] Computers & Graphics-Uk, 35 (2), 402-411.
Jncc. (2004) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Maritime Cliff and Slope
Habitats London, England: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Life, E.N., E.A. and C.C.M.S. Coastal Habitat Management Plans: An Interim Guide to
Content and Structure. Living with the Sea Peterborough. (LIFE Project).

Eithne Davis - A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal Erosion in County Sligo

Eithne Davis - A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal Erosion in County Sligo

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Eithne Davis - A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal Erosion in County Sligo

Similar to Eithne Davis - A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal Erosion in County Sligo (20)

Eithne Davis - A Spatial Study of Sites Susceptible to Coastal Erosion in County Sligo