Coastal Management, 41:1–18, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2012.747807

Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans: Integrating

Lessons from the Past into Second Generation Plans

MARIA ADELAIDE FERREIRA,1 ALLAN T. WILLIAMS,1,2

AND CARLOS PEREIRA DA SILVA1
1
e-GEO, Research Centre for Geography and Regional Planning, FCSH-UNL,
Lisboa, Portugal
2
Built Environment. Swansea Metropolitan University, Swansea, Wales,
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

United Kingdom

The first comprehensive attempt to zone mainland Portugal’s shoreline began in 1993
with legislation which created Shoreline Spatial Plans (POOCs). The shoreline was
subdivided into nine segments and between 1998–2005, the corresponding POOCs were
developed and approved. POOC implementation was perceived as having contributed
to improve the overall quality of the coastal area, but systematic/quantitative attempts
to evaluate their implementation’s success focused solely on rates of financial execution
and on governance/procedural aspects. Evaluations did not answer if or how POOC
implementation has been successful, i.e., if implemented measures actually contributed
to attainment of POOC’s objectives. An overview is given of the first generation of
POOCs and of the main evaluations performed. The significance of comprehensive
evaluations is discussed and reflection presented on the importance of a prospective
view in development of second generation plans. A set of recommendations for shoreline
spatial planning is proposed based on Portugal’s POOC experience.

Keywords a posteriori evaluations, indicators, POOC, prospective, spatial planning

Introduction
Coastal areas, where (sea) water meets land and air (Carter 1988), provide a plethora of
environmental goods and services, including water supply and regulation, climate regula-
tion, erosion control, nutrient cycling and waste treatment, food production, raw materials
and genetic resources, shelter, protection from storms, transport, and scenic landscapes
(Costanza et al. 1997, 1998; Alharbi et al 2012; Antunes and Taborda 2009; Chica Ruiz,
Pérez Cayeiro, and Barragán Muñoz 2012; Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998; Williams et al.
2012). They are home to some of the world’s most productive ecosystems, including

The first author would like to thank Prof. Ana Firmino for her valuable inputs to the first
version of this manuscript. The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers whose insights
and comments greatly helped to improve the article quality. This paper presents research results of
the Strategic Project of e-GEO (PEst-OE/SADG/UI0161/2011) Research Centre for Geography and
Regional Planning funded by the Portuguese State Budget through the Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia.
Address correspondence to Maria Adelaide Ferreira, e-GEO, Research Centre for Geography
and Regional Planning, FCSH-UNL, Av. de Berna, 26-C, 1069-061 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail:
adelaide.ferreira@fcsh.unl.pt

1
 2 M. A. Ferreira et al.

estuaries, marshes, mangroves, and seagrass beds (Costanza et al. 1997). Since historic
times their productivity and overall appeal has drawn humans worldwide to settle along
seashores/coastal areas. Today, some 50% of the world’s coastline is under threat from
development and it is estimated that by 2025, about 75% of the world’s population will live
within 60 km of the sea (Finkl and Kruempfel 2005). In turn, increased human occupation
of coastal territories has typically resulted in their deterioration (pollution, eutrophication,
destruction or removal of important habitats, such as mangroves, that act as natural de-
fenses against storms, depletion of fishing stocks, despoilment resulting from inappropriate
development practices, etc.), with significant losses in productivity and the overall value
of affected coastal areas (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998). In Europe, ecosystem services
provided by seas and coasts are deteriorating, including a decline in goods such as fish
and recreational quality (EEA 2010). By negatively affecting important human activities,
such as transportation, fisheries, or tourism, such decreases in the value of coastal areas
constitute serious drawbacks to the overall health and wealth of coastal nations worldwide.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

Furthermore, the coastal zone is a finite resource, and one that, on a human time-scale,
is non-renewable (Andrade 1998). Therefore, management of coastal areas and of their
associated resources should be a global priority.
In the 19th century, Portugal pioneered the publication of legislation for coastal zone
protection, namely the Public Maritime Domain law, passed in 1864, which defined, for the
entire Portuguese coastline, a band/stretch of territory “that could not be turned into private
property and permanent settlement could not occur without governmental agreement”
(Ferreira, Dias, and Taborda 2008, 322). In Portugal, in 1993, a law was passed to regulate
the use of the Maritime Public Domain (MPD) and of a protection area, landward of the
MPD. This same law created the figure of Shoreline Spatial Plans (POOCs), which started
being implemented in 1998. Nine plans were created, covering the entire coastline of
mainland Portugal. Almost 20 years later, as the second generation of plans is underway, it
is important to take stock of the implementation results of the first generation of plans and
to use lessons learned to complement a prospective vision for the new batch of plans. Many
other coastal nations are presently in the process of developing their own set of spatial
shoreline management plans, namely, in Latin America (Barragán Muñoz 2010), Europe
(DEFRA 2006; PAP/RAC 2007), and Africa (PAC 2006; Palmer et al. 2011). Lessons
learned from Portugal’s almost 20 years of experience may help other countries to fine-tune
development of their plans, bearing in mind that there are no universal recipes for such
plans.
This article presents an overview of the first generation of shoreline spatial plans in
mainland Portugal, including their implementation, together with some of the main policy
evaluations performed. It discusses the importance of a posteriori evaluations, prospective,
and the current existence of a new legal framework in Portugal. These are propitious for
development of more strategic second-generation plans, and the role that research may play
in that process. It further presents a list of recommendations for shoreline spatial plans,
drawn from the Portuguese experience.

A Brief History of Mainland Portugal’s Shoreline Spatial Plans (POOCs)

The Coast
The coastal zone of mainland Portugal extends over 950 km, and is home to about 75% of
the population (Andrade et al. 2006), estimated as 10 million inhabitants (INE 2011), most
of whom (c. 40%) are concentrated in the coastal metropolitan areas of Lisboa and Porto
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 3

(Ferreira and Matias in press). Mainland Portugal’s coastal zone is estimated to represent
85% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP; Andrade et al. 2002).
The Portuguese coastal zone displays a remarkable structural and environmental di-
versity including exposed and sheltered sand beaches, often bordering dunes or cliffs,
rocky stretches, abrasion platforms, bays and promontories/headlands, sand peninsulas and
barrier islands, estuaries, and coastal lagoons (Table 1). Rocky stretches, sedimentary en-
vironments, and artificial/human areas correspond, respectively, to about 36%, 60.5%, and
3.5% of the coastline (Andrade et al. 2002). Andrade et al. (2002) and Ferreira, Dias, and
Taborda (2008) give an in-depth discussion of main coastal types and their location along
the Portuguese coast. The mutual influence of terrestrial and marine environments, and
Portugal’s dimensions and proportions, have led some authors to state that “Portugal is, in
every respect, a coastal country” (Andrade, Cabral, and Borges 2009, 413).
With an economy based on the primary sector (agriculture and fisheries), the coastal
zone was left relatively untouched until the 1960s, when development of the tourism
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

industry led to an increasing artificialization of many coastline stretches (Duarte, Barbosa,

and Costa Lobo 2004; Andrade et al. 2005; Ribeiro 2011). Between 1990 and 2000, Portugal
was the country of the European Union with the highest urban artificial area growth rate in
the coastal zone (34%) and, currently, about one third of the coastline of mainland Portugal
is, with varying densities, permanently occupied with urban areas, ports, and industries
(Andrade et al. 2006; EEA 2006).
Thirty-three-hundred km of mainland coastline is under threat of erosion (INAG 2011).
Direct and indirect anthropogenic stressors, for example, human settlements (urban areas,
ports, and industries), disruption of coastal processes and interference with sediment sources
and coastal sediment cells, together with effects of climate change (sea-level rise and
increased frequency and intensity of storms), place an added stress on a naturally dynamic
environment (Andrade, Cabral, and Borges 2009; INAG 2011; Veloso-Gomes 2011).
More than 50% of the coastline is covered by Natura 2000 sites (EEA 2006), an
indicator that, in spite of a growing artificialization, the Portuguese coastal zone still presents
significant natural and landscape values (Ferreira and Matias in press). Such values make
the Portuguese coast a major tourist destination and, despite the global economic crisis
and competition with other destinations on the global market, it is estimated that the
sector’s contribution to Portugal’s GDP (estimated as 5% in 2008) will increase in the
future (OECD 2011). Nevertheless, the occupation, use, and transformation rates of several
coastal stretches along the Portuguese coastline have been reported as “worrying,” and
“there is a continuous pressure towards consolidation, growing density, and expansion of
waterfront building” (Veloso-Gomes and Taveira-Pinto 2003, 26).
The main governmental entity responsible for implementing coastal zone planning
and management is the Ministry of the Environment, and, more specifically, the National
Environmental Agency (APA). Previously the responsibility was shared among the Water
Institute (INAG), and regional administrations (ARHs). Local authorities, such as munic-
ipalities, should incorporate centrally defined objectives and rules for coastal zone man-
agement but fragmented responsibilities over the coastal zone frequently impair integrated
coastal zone management efforts (Carneiro 2007; Martins and Albuquerque 2010).
The First Generation of Shoreline Spatial Plans
Decree-Law 309/93 was the first systematic and comprehensive attempt to organize the
shoreline of mainland Portugal through the figure of Shoreline Spatial Plans (Planos de
Ordenamento da Orla Costeira—POOCs). POOC objectives (Decree-Law 309/93 1993)
were mainly social and economic, and, to a lesser extent, environmental:
 4 M. A. Ferreira et al.

Table 1
Designation (authority responsible for plan’s development), date of publication, update or
revision (deliberation), and general characteristics of the nine POOCs of mainland Portugal

Published; (updated);
POOC Launch 2nd gen. Length; General characteristics
Caminha- 07.04.1999 (02.10.2007) 110 km; Mostly low lying rocky
Espinho 09.10.2009 coast interspersed with sand
(INAG) beaches; densely populated area;
severe coastal erosion in some
stretches; high biological and
landscape diversity
Ovar-Marinha 20.10.2000; 09.10.2009 146 km; geologically fragile
Grande territory, mostly low lying sand
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

(INAG) coasts and dune systems; neighbors

the ria de Aveiro Lagoon; severe
coastal erosion in some stretches,
raising special concern when
nearing urban areas
Alcobaça-Mafra 27.01.2002 142 km; rock cliffs, punctuated by
(INAG) waterlines and dune systems;
severe erosion problems in some
stretches of the coastline
Sintra-Sado 25.06.2003 120 km; high diversity of landscapes
(ICN) and environments; rock cliffs and
sand beaches, dune systems;
includes two natural parks
Cidadela- 19.10.1998 (13.04.2011) 10 km; Urban front of one
S.Julião da municipality (Cascais); highly
Barra (INAG) artificial coast
Sado-Sines 02.10.1999 (17.08.2007) 65 km; Low-lying sand beaches, and
(INAG) associated dune fields; mostly
undeveloped
Sines-Burgau 30.12.1998 23.04.2010 180 km; Rock cliffs; largely
(ICN) undeveloped coast; Corresponds to
the shoreline of the Natural Park of
Sudoeste Alentejano and Costa
Vicentina
Burgau- 27.04.1999 23.04.2010 65 km; Rock cliffs and sand beaches;
Vilamoura high urban and tourism pressure
(INAG)
Vilamoura-Vila 27.06.2005 Scheduled to 75 km; Sand coast, cliffs, coastal
Real de Santo start in 2015 lagoon (Ria Formosa). Includes the
António (ICN) coastal area of Ria Formosa
Natural Park
Sources: Legislation, MAOTDR (2008).
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 5

a) zoning/ordering different uses and specific activities of the shoreline;

b) classification of beaches and regulation of bathing use;
c) valorization and qualification of beaches considered strategic for environmental or
tourism reasons;
d) guiding development of activities specific to the shoreline; and
e) nature protection and conservation.
The territorial objects of the POOCs were coastal and interior maritime waters (excluding
ports) and the corresponding seabed and margins including marine and terrestrial protection
zones limited, respectively, by the 30 m isobath and by a line 500 m inland from the sea
margin, which is 50 m inland from the maximum upper limit of the tide (Figure 1).
Continental Portugal’s shoreline was subdivided in nine segments on the basis of
physiography and sediment circulation, natural and anthropogenic values, and political
and management jurisdiction (INAG 2006). Two national agencies were responsible for
elaborating the plans: the Nature Conservation Institute (ICN), being responsible for three
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

POOCs corresponding to shorelines included in protected areas, and INAG (the Water Insti-
tute), responsible for the remaining six plans. The nine POOCs, each with a 10-year horizon,
were approved over a seven-year period, between 1998 and 2005 (Figure 2 and Table 1).
POOCs were originally created as sectoral spatial plans but were later, in the framework
of Decree-Law 151/95, of June 24, reclassified as special spatial plans, which bind all public
and private entities and to which lower-level plans, such as municipal spatial plans, and
national, regional, or local programs or projects must be made compatible (Decree-Law
151/95 1995). In other words, this meant that national authorities took on “integrated coastal
zone spatial planning and management” as a national objective (INAG 2006). Later, Decree-
Law 380/99, of September 22, established special plans as supplementary governmental
tools to safeguard natural resources to promote sustainable territorial use (MAOTDR 2008).
Implementation Attempts and Main Types of Measures Contained in the POOCs
In 1998, the Portuguese government put forward the Littoral Program, which approved
governmental strategic guidelines for the shoreline, and had a clear focus on contributing
to POOC implementation (Resolution of the Council of Ministers 86 1998). In 2003, the
government launched the FINISTERRA program, whose objective was “to give a new im-
pulse and to enable the fulfillment of the actions and interventions projected in the POOCs

Figure 1. Cross cut schematic representation of the coastal area covered by the POOCs (adapted
from Universidade de Aveiro/CEDRU 2011). (Color figure available online).
 6 M. A. Ferreira et al.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

Figure 2. Distribution and limits of the nine POOCs of mainland Portugal. (Color figure available
online).

and of other actions projected for the littoral outside the framework of the POOCs but
articulated with their application” (Resolution of the Council of Ministers 22 2003, 1065).
In 2006, to resume the programmed implementation of the POOCs, “which had been
interrupted in the three previous years” (Dispatch 6042/2006, 3690), a Strategic Coordi-
nation Group (SCG) composed by national (central government) and regional government
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 7

officials (CCDRs—regional coordination and development commissions) and technicians

of protected areas, was created with the objectives of promoting coordination and monitor-
ing POOC implementation and activities of POOC operational coordinators (also created
in that Dispatch). In 2008, the Polis Littoral program was launched to undertake a set of
requalification and valorization operations in littoral areas at risk and degraded natural areas
(Resolution of the Council of Ministers 90 2008). The succession of different programs
over the years reflects the difficulties felt to promote and ensure POOC implementation.
As to the main types of specific measures implemented in the framework of the differ-
ent plans, these were: coastal defense, urban and beach requalification (modernization of
urban areas and beach infrastructures and accesses), environmental awareness, demolitions,
studies and monitoring, and technical advisory (MAOTDR 2008). The implementation of
these measures is discussed below, in the section Tentative Evaluations of the POOCs.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

Plan Updates and Second Generation

From 2007 and 2011, three plans were updated mostly with the objective of re-evaluating
beach classification, defined in Decree Law 309/93:

I: Urban beaches under intensive use;

II: Peri-urban beaches under intensive use;
III: Beaches with facilities with conditional use;
IV: Beaches without facilities, with conditional use.

This classification, currently under revision, is considering the changes (improvements) re-
sulting from investments already performed; the classification of new areas with potential
for bathing use (beaches with good water quality and >100 users/day during the high sea-
son); re-evaluating typologies and dimensions of beach facilities; and updating inadequate
regulations, by adapting them to the current situation.
Experience with first-generation plans highlighted a number of problems undermin-
ing their implementation and justified the need to revise “these instruments of territorial
management” (Dispatch 22620/2009, 41546). Plans included a number of outdated pro-
posals; there was unequal treatment of maritime and terrestrial buffer areas; problems with
cartography; rigid beach plans; inadequate sizing of the infrastructures for bathing activ-
ity; failure to carry out the development of local planning and management units/areas
(Dispatch 22620/2009).
The second generation of plans was set in motion in 2009. Main objectives of this
revision were: integrating new national and regional strategies into POOCs; defining
mechanisms to safeguard specific natural values and resources; protect and value ma-
rine and terrestrial ecosystems; safeguard vulnerable areas (including coastal dynamics,
and climate change in management); prevent risk situations (e.g., by containing urban
area densification); make different coastal zone uses compatible with each other and with
defense, recuperation, and valorization of marine and terrestrial systems; value and qual-
ify strategic beaches, dunes, and cliffs; clarify the sharing of responsibilities between
institutions/authorities with jurisdiction over the coastal zone (Dispatch 22620/2009).
The new plans (none of which have yet been completed) will include port areas within
their boundaries (which were formerly excluded from the plans), and shall be subject to
Environmental Evaluation, in the framework of the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) legislation.
 8 M. A. Ferreira et al.

Evaluation of the First Generation of POOCs

Importance of Evaluation in Planning and Public Policies

Evaluation is an essential component of the planning process and can occur at different
stages and with different purposes. Specifically, a posteriori evaluations, retrospective
studies of the implementation of earlier versions of plans, occur at the end of each planning
cycle, and are useful in making better planning decisions. A posteriori evaluations aim to
“learn about results and effects achieved with the implementation of a plan, comparing them
with desired and expected results at the time of the evaluation (to learn about the instrument’s
efficacy and efficiency)” (Pereira 2009, 90). Learning from experience is the cornerstone of
an adaptive approach to planning and management, crucial when dealing with uncertainty
and change, be it environmental, social, political, or economic (or any other; Douvere and
Ehler 2011). These authors highlighted the absolute necessity for evaluation in planning
as: “Without understanding whether or not existing . . . plans are actually achieving their
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

desired results, how can we ultimately know how to improve them?” (Douvere and Ehler
2011, 311).
Albeit considered important, a posteriori evaluations are still not common, and when
they occur, focus preferably on the level of financial execution of implemented measures
rather than on the global development of the territory (Pascual i Esteve 2007). Such eval-
uations do not answer the question of whether or not, or how, plan implementation has
been successful (i.e., if implemented measures actually contributed to attain a given plan’s
objectives).
Last but not least, evaluation of public policies is a vital component in demonstrating
how effectively state/national governments use and manage public funds (DGOTDU 2010).
In other words, it is key in showing tax payers whether or not their money was well spent
by the state. It also helps authorities gage their performance and to improve and adequately
design public policies (DGOTDU 2010).

Tentative Evaluations of the POOCs

Over the years, a number of POOC qualitative evaluations have been undertaken. In 2009,
a qualitative take stock of POOCs’ implementation in the central stretch of the continen-
tal Portuguese coast, encompassing four POOCs, concluded that there had been a clear
improvement along that coastline, due, i.a., to the regulation of bathing use, new beach
infrastructures, and re-qualified beach accesses (Rocha 2009). This improvement in beach
facilities and in regulating beach accesses and parking was felt along most of the Portuguese
shoreline, where such interventions took place. Also, on a national scale the overall balance
was perceived as “certainly positive” (Veloso-Gomes and Taveira-Pinto 2003, 28) due, i.a.,
to the public debate/participation it created (Veloso-Gomes and Taveira-Pinto 2003; Soares
2008).
Qualitative POOC evaluations (Veloso-Gomes and Taveira-Pinto 2003; Carmo 2009),
highlighted a number of problems in elaboration and implementation of the first generation
of POOCs, such as:

i) different scientific/technical backgrounds and different methodologies used by

technical teams developing POOCs;
ii) tight deadlines for POOC development;
iii) setup and attitudes of accompanying technical commissions led to final products
of differing quality, technical, and scientific detail;
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 9

iv) lack of rigorous/appropriate/updated base data and information (particularly seri-

ous in such dynamic territories as coastal areas);
v) information dispersed among many institutions, which was not timely made avail-
able to POOC planning teams;
vi) exclusion of harbor areas limiting an integrated approach to coastal problems;
vii) lack of reflection and strategic thinking leading, i.a., to a number of inconsistencies
between and within plans;
viii) uncritical assimilation in the POOCs of actions already included in existing plan-
ning instruments (many proposals contained in the POOCs reflected the interests
of Municipal Authorities present in Accompanying Technical Commissions);
ix) governance problems: institutional and management insufficiency, inadequate mo-
bilization of human, technical and financial resources to implement and accom-
pany POOC proposals;
x) marked conflicts of interests among users;
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

xi) due to the existing legal framework during POOC development, priority was given
to zoning rather than to management (Carmo 2009).
A quantitative evaluation of POOC implementation carried out by the Ministry of the
Environment (MAOTDR 2008), concerning the seven-year period between 1998 (beginning
of the first POOC), and the end of 2005 (when the ninth and last POOC was published),
concluded that, overall 99.7 M € had been spent in implementation of these plans. Almost
two thirds (62%) were spent on coastal defense measures, and a fifth (21%) on beach
requalification measures, mainly comprising requalification of beach infrastructures (e.g.,
bars, toilets, access points, and pathways; MAOTDR 2008). Figure 3 compares, by class
of intervention, planned and unplanned expenditures (in M €) for the entire coast.

Budgeted expenses Total spent planned

9.3 9.3 3.0 1.3
2.7 0.2 5.3
37.1 83.6 0.2

19.5
115.6 44.0
163.5
421.1 77.7
4.2

Total spent not planned

1.3 0.6
1.2 0.1
0.9

17.9
22.0

Figure 3. Total intended expenses (budgeted) versus real planned and unplanned expenditures (in
M €) in the framework of POOCs interventions between 1998 and 2005 (MAOTDR 2008). (Color
figure available online).
 10 M. A. Ferreira et al.

Coastal Defense. On a national scale, coastal defense measures (construction and mainte-
nance of seawalls and jetties) were the type of intervention where most money was spent
out of all planned expenditures (>56%). This represented a significantly higher investment
in coastal defense structures than originally foreseen (19.8%) and a clear prevalence of
this type of measures over all others (Figure 3). Greatest fund expenditure with this item
happened in coastal stretches with densely populated areas as “coast dynamics is only a
problem while threatening human settlement” (Veloso-Gomes et al. 2003, 46). Also, in
terms of funds spent in unforeseen situations, the bigger share went to coastal defenses
(over 81% of unplanned expenditures) reflecting the remediation of emergency situations
in populated areas, caused by extreme weather events.

Urban Requalification. Urban requalification measures (construction or modernization

of urban areas) represented almost 40% (38.8%) of all intended interventions, but their
materialization added up to a mere 5% of all funds spent. This arguably happened because
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

of difficulties licensing the corresponding urbanization projects, due mainly to the capital
involved (MAOTDR 2008).

Beach Requalification. This category (construction or modernization of beach facili-

ties/infrastructures, beach access, parking) made up over one fourth (27.5%) of intended
expenses, and represented only one fifth of realized investments. These were, arguably,
those measures that most contributed to a feeling of overall improvement of the quality of
the beach environment for tourism and recreation.

Other Types of Measures. The remaining types of measures, including environmental

awareness initiatives, demolitions, studies and monitoring, technical advisory, and others
(e.g., sewage infrastructures), represented less than 14% of budgeted funds and added up
to 12% of the total money spent with the POOCs.
MAOTDR’s evaluation focused mostly on the financial execution of the plans, but it
also reported on perceived implementation difficulties and it critically assessed individual
POOC implementation. Major difficulties mentioned in POOC implementation were:
• budget restrictions (sometimes qualified as “severe”) and lack of dedicated funds for
the POOCs;
• insufficient human and material resources (with implications on surveillance ac-
tions);
• institutional/governance problems (including lack of articulation between institu-
tions with jurisdiction on the shoreline, and vagueness/uncertainty about each other’s
responsibilities/competences);
• lack of legal clarification concerning concessions on the public maritime domain;
• legislative rigidity, hindering adaptive management;
• reduced territorial scope, impairing a systemic and holistic approach to management;
• beach concession holders’ resistance to implement improvements (various reasons
presented);
• faulty/inadequate/outdated plans (including cartographic problems) (MAOTDR
2008).
Nevertheless, this report did not provide a comprehensive assessment of POOC implemen-
tation, in environmental and socioeconomic terms (i.e., an efficacy evaluation).
Did implemented measures contribute to achieve the professed overarching socioe-
conomic and environmental objectives of the POOCs (zoning shoreline specific uses and
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 11

activities; beach classification and regulation of bathing use; valorization and qualification
of strategic beaches; guiding the development of shoreline specific activities; and nature
protection and conservation)? Beach classification and requalification can be said to have
been tackled with a certain degree of success, at least from a financial point of view, since,
by the end of 2005, 73% of funds meant for beach requalification had been used. However,
financial expenditures alone have a limited interest as indicators of the success of public
policy implementation. Other than measuring inputs (e.g., money invested), it is important
to measure outputs (indicating the goods and services produced by a given policy), out-
comes (evaluating how the results of a plan match its projected objectives), and outreach
(indirect and long-run consequences of the policy being evaluated) (DGOTDU 2010).
In this context, several questions can be asked: Was zoning of different coastal uses
successfully achieved? How was the objective of “guiding the development of shoreline
specific activities” achieved? Was the objective of nature protection and conservation met?
How? And by how much? Inversely, in terms of the main types of measures implemented,
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

under what general POOC objective fell “coastal defense” interventions? All of these
questions (and arguably more) remain, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, unanswered.

Prospective and the Second Generation of POOCs

Importance of Prospective in the Planning Process

Prospective is an approach that anticipates events (Pascual i Esteve, 2007), as well as
“desirable and undesirable evolutions of a territorial system in the long-term” (Pereira
2009, 89). In the case of coastal zone spatial and/or management policy plans, such as
the POOCs, a prospective view will necessarily have to encompass and incorporate new
environmental (climate change and their foreseeable effects on coastal areas) and the new
social/economic situation, both characterized by uncertainty and instability. It will also
require a more strategic view of planning (global and integrated, procedural/operational,
prospective, participative (oriented and flexible) in detriment of a more conventional view
of planning (physical, sectoral, normative, demand-oriented, rigid) (Ferreira 2005).
One example of the importance of prospective is given by the statement: “The market-
price mechanism does not provide the opportunity for all those who are affected, partic-
ularly those not yet born, to signal their preferences to others. From the perspective of
sustainability, an externality of particular significance is the way in which one generation’s
choices constrain or enhance the options available to future generations” (Desai 2009, 136).
Desai’s concerns can be translated as the problem of exporting externalities in time. On the
other hand, because of human interference with sediment circulation through, for example,
construction of coastal defenses, hard interventions along coastlines are known to cause
spatial externalities. A prospective view of planning can contribute to mitigate both types of
externalities and constitutes a significant challenge in terms of coastal zone spatial planning
and policy, with consequences for present and future generations.

A Modernized Legal Framework for Portugal’s Shoreline Spatial Plans

Over the past 20 years, Portugal has adhered to and adopted a bulk of environmental leg-
islation that incorporates a number of principles important for sustainable environmental
management, including the precautionary principle, ecosystem-based management, and in-
tegrated management. Under Portuguese law, POOCs are required to conform to Portuguese
national and regional strategies, such as the national strategy for sustainable development,
 12 M. A. Ferreira et al.

regional zoning/spatial plans (PROTs), the national strategy for the sea, the guidelines of the
maritime spatial plan (POEM), the marine strategy framework directive, and the national
strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ENGIZC; INAG 2011).
Another positive sign is inclusion of considerations relating to climate change and
their foreseeable effects in coastal areas and coastal dynamics in the same legislation.
After publication of the legislation mandating POOC revision, the National Strategy of
Adaptation to Climate Change was published, which highlighted the coastal zone as one of
nine strategic sectors of priority action (MAOTDR 2007). Data from this strategy has been
taken into consideration to provide baseline information to support decisions to be made
in the new plans. This envisages different scenarios, according to different levels of coastal
retreat.
The need to undertake Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the new plans,
which is a legal requisite in Portugal since 2007, can also be a powerful tool in terms of
prospective, provided it is performed simultaneously with the development of the new plans
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

and not at the end of the process, merely as a pro-forma to meet legal requirements.
The inclusion of principles of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in the
new plans constitutes another promising sign in terms of a prospective view of planning.
The Portuguese Strategy for ICZM (ENGIZC) was published in 2009, about a month
before the POOC revision was determined. It is a 20-year strategy based on a system
approach that advocates an integrative and prospective vision of the coastal zone, enunciated
as, “a harmoniously developed and sustainable coastal zone, based on a systemic and
resource/identity valuing approach, knowledge-based and managed according to a model
that articulates institutions, policies and instruments and ensures the participation of the
different stakeholders involved” (Resolution of the Council of Ministers 82 2009, 6067).
ENGIZC proposes a set of 20 measures, including implementation of a priority intervention
program to increase coastal zone value, which contributes to evaluation and reprogramming
of interventions, (re)evaluating the need for “heavy” coastal defense interventions through
the application of multi-criteria models, as well as the need to define parameters and
indicators to be monitored (Resolution of the Council of Ministers 82 2009). These are
difficult problems to tackle and researchers may play a determining role in providing base
information for management, thus contributing to the overall planning process.
The greater focus on management suggested in the legislation determining revision of
the POOCs is also positive. Although POOCs have commonly been referred to as coastal
management plans (e.g., Dispatch 22620/2009; Veloso-Gomes et al. 2003), they are, in
fact, spatial plans. Such confusion in terminology may be counterproductive since it may
convey an erroneous idea about the operational possibilities of these plans. As mentioned
above, POOCs have now the opportunity to evolve from rigid conventional plans to more
strategic plans, which are integrative, procedural/operational, prospective, participative,
demand oriented, and flexible (Ferreira 2005), contributing to further the development and
consolidation of a truly integrated coastal zone management spatial policy in Portugal.

Recommendations for Shoreline Spatial Planning Based on the Portuguese

Experience with the POOCs
Many countries are in the process of developing their own ICZM programs. Although, as
Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, 9) point out, ICZM is not “a ‘one size fits all’ concept”,
examples from a country that has already developed and implemented a first round of plans
for the entire coast and is currently in the process of revising them, are bound to provide
useful pointers for other nations that are just starting to implement their ICZM programs.
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 13

A set of general recommendations to improve results of coastal zone spatial planning

and ICZM should comprise:

1. A clear enunciation of objectives in spatial and/or management policy plans: Stated

objectives of Portuguese POOCs were zoning uses and activities of the shoreline;
beach classification, valorization, and qualification of beaches considered strategic
for environmental or tourism reasons; and nature protection and conservation. These
are overarching, general intentions, and, as such, are intangible, abstract, and cannot
be measured (Ehler and Douvere 2009). All too often, only overall objectives (or
goals) are included in plans, making their evaluation impossible (Douvere and Ehler
2011). Clear definition of objectives, including environmental and social/societal
(but also of governance) is imperative to allow for an actual appraisal of any plan’s
outcomes. Several authors have defended the need for hierarchically inferior (to
the aforementioned strategic goals) but more precise SMART objectives: Specific
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

(concrete, detailed, focused), Measurable (allowing an outcome to the measured

and should, as such, ideally be expressed as a quantity), Achievable (attainable
within a reasonable amount of time/effort/resources), Relevant (leading to a desired
goal/strategic objective), and Time-bound (indicate a deadline for its completion)
(Day 2008; Douvere and Ehler 2011). An example of a SMART objective in the
case of a POOC might be: “Requalify xx% of urban beaches in a given time
period.” Only with SMART objectives will it be possible to effectively evaluate the
multidimensional results of any plan’s implementation (e.g., financial, governance,
inputs, outputs, outcomes, outreach) (DGOTDU 2010), feedback which is crucial
for authorities, managers, and taxpayers.
2. An evaluation of existing plans (when they do exist): A posteriori evaluations are
so important that, in a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)
analysis of the POOCs, the Ministry of the Environment listed as a key threat “be-
ginning the revision of the POOCs without a strategic and environmental evaluation
of existing plans” (MAOTDR 2007, 96). However, in the laws that determined the
revision of the POOCs, there is no mention of evaluation, either of efficiency (oper-
ational and strategic performance) or of efficacy (environmental and socioeconomic
effects resulting from any Plan’s implementation). Overlooking such an important
step of the planning process constitutes a significant gap in information for the next
generation of POOCs. However, the need for such an evaluation is already included
in the final proposal for the Portuguese Maritime Spatial Plan (MAOT 2010), which
constitutes a very promising sign.
3. A set of realistic indicators for evaluation of such policies: Indicators, quantitative
measurements that simplify information on complex processes not easily observed
(Diedrich, Tintoré, and Navinés 2010), can be used in various stages of the planning
process with various purposes, and “essentially, they can help decision-makers iden-
tify, evaluate and track progress towards solving sustainability problems” (Diedrich,
Tintoré, and Navinés 2010, 772). They are also increasingly considered as a means
to bridging the science–policy gap (Diedrich, Tintoré, and Navinés 2010). Indica-
tors should be selected, for example, on the basis of costs involved in obtaining
them, on their clarity, adequacy to user groups, context sensibility, comparability,
and scientific robustness (DGOTDU 2010). Definition of a practical and limited set
of indicators (“few but good”) is a challenging but necessary task.
4. Adopt a prospective view to planning: England and Wales are currently prepar-
ing second generation shoreline management plans (SMPs)—their equivalent to
 14 M. A. Ferreira et al.

POOCs—with a suggested three-prong approach—the current situation (up to

20 years), medium term (20–50 years), and long term (50–100 years), all relating
to the natural and historic usage of the areas concerned (Williams and Micallef
2009). Currently, this implies the need to adapt to sea-level rise and to adopt poli-
cies (hold the line; advance the line; managed realignment or “no intervention”) that
minimize spatial and temporal externalities. Such an approach will potentially allow
expenses on remedial interventions along the coast, such as, the ones that made up
the bulk of expenditures in the framework of the first generation of POOCs, to be
minimized, with direct governance, economic, and environmental benefits.
5. Integrate coastal and maritime policies: Such integration, advocated in Chapter
17 of Agenda 21 (UN 1992), is desirable because both types of policies will most
likely involve the same entities (Carneiro 2007) and also because any maritime ac-
tivity (fisheries, aquaculture, shipping, offshore activities), has to have some kind of
connection to the coastal zone. Such integration, and the need to reinforce the mar-
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

itime component in ICZM, is laid down in several pieces of Portuguese legislation,

including the National Ocean Strategy, the National Program for Spatial Planning
Policy, and the National ICZM strategy (Resolution of the Council of Ministers
163/2006; Law 58/2007; Resolution of the Council of Ministers 82/2009). In prac-
tice, however, such integration is far from being a reality, because of the existence of
different authorities with separate jurisdictions over coastal and marine areas. This
inevitably creates a potential for conflicts among authorities, and differing planning
options, with a concurrent and unnecessary expenditure of time and public funds.
6. Favor integrated rather than sectoral approaches to planning and management:
Coastal management efforts face a number of inherent difficulties (Cicin-Sain and
Knecht 1998): conflicts between uses and users; jurisdiction shared by different
authorities, sometimes at different levels of government, resulting in conflict and,
sometimes, in “governance voids”; and the sheer complexity of these environments,
which are naturally dynamic (not forgetting the current challenge of adapting to sea-
level rise) and permanently influenced by what happens on their marine, terrestrial,
and atmospheric boundaries. All of the above often result in sectoral approaches
to management, which are arguably easier to manage but that are not adequate
to effectively deal with issues requiring multi-sectoral responses (Carneiro 2007).
This is especially true in management of dynamic and hyperdimensional natural
systems. Such has been the case with first-generation POOCs, where interventions
had a clear sectoral approach. It is important to note that the term “sectoral” can
be used transversally (e.g., as in the case of the maritime sector mentioned in the
Green Paper toward a future maritime policy for the Union, EEC 2006). In this case,
the “sector” includes all human activities taking place in a specific environment,
the sea or the coast, turning such a “sectoral” approach into an integrated one.
This understanding of the concept was used in the final version of the Portuguese
maritime spatial plan (pending governmental approval) and its extension to the
POOCs could be interesting.
7. Public participation and information: These are key aspects in any successful
planning process (including the implementation stage), as stakeholder involvement
contributes to better and more informed decision-making (CSC 2007). However,
although increasing attention has been given in Portuguese legislation and in practice
to promoting public participation, which was “weak” in Portugal until recently
(Soares 2008, 92), public discussions in the framework of the POOCs showed
positive results in terms of participation levels, but revealed that individual concerns
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 15

were often self-centered, instead of focusing on common problems or benefits

(Soares 2008). Most of the time, the bulk of the process simply consisted in public
consultation of the final versions of the plans. However, it is important to stress that
by law all written comments made by the public and addressed to the authorities
have to have a reply. It is clear that greater attention must be given to informing the
public, as another step to promote better decisions.
8. No need to reinvent the wheel: As mentioned above, there can be no universal
recipe for ICZM, as every country, and arguably every region, has a unique set of
characteristics and governance/management policies and structures. Nevertheless,
pressures and challenges faced by coastal areas—more specifically, by coastal com-
munities, as, in fact, the object of management are not ecosystems but people—are
very similar. There is a growing body of experience worldwide, produced by coastal
researchers and managers, and, more than ever, it is important to learn from that
experience, as, presently, for coastal areas, time is of the essence.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

Conclusions
Implementation of the first generation of POOCs has had a number of positive effects on
the Portuguese shoreline (a significant improvement of beach infrastructures and contain-
ment of interventions/impacts, including ordered parking lots and beach access) and has
also resulted in a number of planned/budgeted and unplanned/emergency coastal defense
interventions. Such interventions, which made up the majority of the total funds spent on
the coast in the framework of these plans, cannot be matched with any of the Plan’s strate-
gic/overarching objectives. In addition, it is also the first time that the coast is considered
as an holistic entity and this has been a crucial step for development of the recent National
Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
A global evaluation has not yet been undertaken and will only be possible after de-
tailed and integrative assessment of environmental and socioeconomic effects have been
performed. At the same time, there is presently a very different, more improved legal
framework than the one that existed when POOCs were created: principles of strategic
planning, climate-change proofing, participation, adaptive management, scale-matching,
and prospective have emerged, whereas others, such as sustainability and sustainable de-
velopment, were consolidated.
The revision of the first generation of mainland Portugal’s coastal zone spatial plans
(POOCs), with a thorough evaluation of their implementation and development of the
second generation of plans, with a prospective view of planning, is a challenge currently
faced by Portugal (materialized in a number of different agents: authorities, managers,
researchers, taxpayers), and in the near future, by an increasing number of coastal nations
worldwide. The integration of ICZM and marine spatial planning constitutes a significant
challenge in terms of planning and policy, with consequences for present and future gener-
ations, and hopefully, in an increasingly smaller world, we can all learn from each other’s
experiences.

References
Alharbi, O.A., M. R. Phillips, A. T. Williams, A. M. Gheith, R. A. Bantan, and N. M. Rasul. 2012.
Desalination impacts on the coastal environment: Ash Shuqayq, Saudi Arabia. Science of the
Total Environment 421–422:163–172.
 16 M. A. Ferreira et al.

Andrade, C., M. C. Freitas, C. Cachado, A. C. Cardoso, J. Hipólito Monteiro, P. Brito, and L.

Rebelo. 2002. Coastal zones. In Climate change in Portugal: Scenarios, impacts and adaptation
measures. SIAM Project, ed. F.D. Santos, K. Forbes, and R. Moita, 173–219. Lisboa: Gradiva,
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Fundaçao para a Ciência e a Tecnologia.
Andrade, C., H. O. Pires, P. Silva, R. Taborda, and M. C. Freitas. 2006. Zonas Costeiras. In Alterações
climáticas em Portugal: Cenários, Impactos e Medidas de Adaptação. Projecto SIAM II, ed.
F. D. Santos and P. Miranda, 169–208. Lisboa: Gradiva.
Andrade, F. 1998. Coastal management research and sustainability. In Ecological economics and
sustainable governance of the oceans, ed. R. Costanza and F. Andrade, 99–106. Lisboa:
FLAD/IMAR/LPN.
Andrade, F., H. Cabral, and M. F. Borges. 2009. Ambientes costeiros. In Ecossistemas e bem-estar
humano: Avaliação para Portugal do Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, ed. H. M. Pereira,
T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença, 413–435. Lisboa: Escolar Editora.
Andrade, F., M. A. Ferreira, N. Gomes, J. Joanaz de Melo, P. Leitão, and M. J. Pinto. 2005. Strategic
environmental assessment in Tróia (Portugal). Proceedings of ICCCM’05:91–98.
Antunes, C. and R. Taborda. 2009. Sea level at Cascais Tide Gauge: Data analysis and results. Int.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

Coastal Symposium, ICS 2009. Journal of Coastal Research SI 56:218–227.

Barragán Muñoz, J. M. (coord.). 2010. Manejo Costero Integrado y Polı́tica Pública en Iberoamérica:
Un diagnóstico. Necesidad de cambio. Red IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz.
Carmo, F. 2009. Planos de Ordenamento da Orla Costeira: Balanço e Perspectivas. In Os Planos de
Ordenamento da Orla Costeira: Balanço e reflexões, 35–40. ARH Tejo. MAOT.
Carneiro, G. 2007. The parallel evolution of ocean and coastal management policies in Portugal.
Marine Policy 31:421–433.
Carter, R. W. G. 1988. Coastal environments: An introduction to the physical, ecological and cultural
systems of coastlines. London: Academic Press.
Chica Ruiz, A., M. L. Pérez Cayeiro, and J. M. Barragán Muñoz. 2012. La evaluación de los
ecosistemas del milenio en el litoral Español y Andaluz. Ambienta 98:92–104.
Cicin-Sain, B. and R. W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated coastal and ocean management: Concepts and
practices. Washington DC: Island Press.
Costanza, R., F. Andrade, P. Antunes, M. van den Belt, D. F. Boesch, P.D. Boersma, F. Catarino, et al.
1998. Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. In Ecological economics
and sustainable governance of the oceans, ed. R. Costanza and F. Andrade, 41–67. Lisboa:
FLAD, IMAR, LPN.
Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.
CSC. 2007. Introduction to Stakeholder Participation. Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—Coastal Services Center. Charleston.
Day, J. 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and
management—Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy 31:823–831.
Decree-Law 151/95. 1995. Decreto-Lei no. 151/95 de 24 de Junho. Diário da República, I série A,
4095–4098. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
Decree-Law 309/93. 1993. Decreto-Lei no. 309/93, de 2 de Setembro. Diário da República, I série
A, 4626–4631. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
DEFRA. 2006. Shoreline management plan guidance. Volume 1: Aims and requirements. Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2006. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/
06/10/pb11726-shoreline-guidance/ (accessed November 2011).
Desai, N. 2009. Governance for sustainability. In Environment at the crossroads: Aiming for a sus-
tainable future, ed. V. Soromenho-Marques, 134–147. Lisboa: Carcanet and Fundação Calouste
Gulbenkian.
DGOTDU. 2010. Sistema nacional de indicadores e dados-base sobre o ordenamento do território e
desenvolvimento urbano: análise exploratória de sistemas de indicadores como instrumentos na
avaliação de polı́ticas públicas. Documento técnico DGOTSU 1/2010. DGOTDU, Ministério
do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território.
 Portuguese Shoreline Spatial Plans 17

Diedrich, A., J. Tintoré, and F. Navinés. 2010. Balancing science and society through establish-
ing indicators for integrated coastal zone management in the Balearic Islands. Marine Policy
34:772–781.
Dispatch 22620/2009. 2009. Despacho no. 22620/2009, de 14 de Outubro. Diário da República, II
série, 41546–41547. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
Dispatch 6042/2006. 2006. Despacho no. 6042/2006, de 14 de Março. Diário da República, II série,
3690. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
Douvere, F. and C. Ehler. 2011. The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime
spatial planning. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15:305–311.
Duarte, R., A. S. Barbosa, and M. L. Costa Lobo. 2004. O turismo como factor integrante no
desenvolvimento do território: o caso de Vilamoura, Algarve, em Portugal, e S. Sebastião, Costa
dos Alcatrazes, no Brasil. Minerva 5:111–119.
EEA. 2006. The Changing Faces of Europe’s Coastal Areas. European Environment Agency. Report
No. 6/2006. Copenhagen.
EEA. 2010. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2010: Marine and Coastal Environment.
European Environment Agency. Copenhagen.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

EEC. 2006. Towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and
Seas. COM (2006) 275 final: Volume II—Annex. Brussels, 7.6.2006.
Ehler, C. and F. Douvere. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-
based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere
Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO.
Ferreira, A. F. 2005. Gestão Estratégica de Cidades e Regiões. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian,
Lisbon.
Ferreira, O. and A. Matias. (in press). Portugal. In Coastal erosion and protection in Europe, ed.
E. Pranzini and A. Williams. London: Routledge/Earthscan.
Ferreira, O., J. A. Dias, and R. Taborda. 2008. Implications of sea-level rise for continental Portugal.
Journal of Coastal Research 24 (2):317–324.
Finkl, C. W. and C. Kruempfel. 2005. Threats, obstacles and barriers to coastal environmental conser-
vation: Societal perceptions and managerial positionalities that defeat sustainable development.
In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Coastal Conservation and Management in the Atlantic and Mediter-
ranean Seas, 3-28, Univ. Porto, Portugal, ed. F. Veloso-Gomes, F. Taveira Pinto, L. das Neves,
A. Sena, and O. Ferreira.
INAG. 2006. Execução da Recomendação sobre Gestão Integrada da Zona Costeira em Portugal:
Relatório de Progresso. Lisboa. 98 pp + annexes.
INAG. 2011. ICZM Implementation in Portugal 2006–2010. Volume I—Progress Report.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/ia reports.htm (accessed May 25, 2011).
INE. 2011. Censos 2011. Instituto Nacional de Estatı́stica. http://censos.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=
CENSOS&xpgid=censos-homepage (accessed September 3, 2012).
Law 58/2007. 2007. Lei no. 58/2007 de 4 de Setembro. Diário da República, I série, 6126–6181.
Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
MAOT. 2010. Memória geral da proposta de POEM. INAG. http://poem.inag.pt (accessed May 31,
2012).
MAOTDR. 2007. GIZC: Bases para a estratégia de Gestão Integrada da Zona Costeira Nacional.
110 pp.
MAOTDR. 2008. Litoral 2007–2013. Avaliação dos Planos de Ordenamento da Orla Costeira e
Propostas de Actuação. Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desen-
volvimento Regional.
Martins, F. and H. Albuquerque. 2010. Gestão do Litoral e Polı́tica pública em Portugal: Um di-
agnóstico. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Polı́tica Pública en Iberoamérica: Un diagnóstico.
Necesidad de Cambio, ed. J. M. Barragán Muñoz, 331–352. Cádiz: Red IBERMAR (CYTED).
OECD. 2011. OECD environmental performance reviews. Portugal: OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264097896.
 18 M. A. Ferreira et al.

PAC. 2006. Programme d’Aménagement Côtier (PAC) “Zone côtière algéroise” Rapport final intégré.
Programme d’Actions Prioritaires—Centre d’Activités Régionales. République Algérienne
démocratique et populaire—Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnment.
PNUE.
Palmer, B. J., R. Van Der Elst, F. Mackay, A. A. Mather, A. M. Smith, S. C. Bundy, Z. Thackeray,
R. Leuci, and O. Parak. 2011. Preliminary coastal vulnerability assessment for KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa. Journal of Coastal Research SI64:1390–1395.
PAP/RAC. 2007. National report on current Policy, Procedures, Legal Basis and Practice of Marine
Spatial Planning in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy. UNEP, EU.
Pascual i Esteve, J. M. 2007. La estrategia territorial como inicio de la gobernanza democrática.
Diputació Barcelona, Xarxa de municipis.
Pereira, M. 2009. Desafios contemporâneos do ordenamento do território: Para uma governabilidade
inteligente do(s) território(s). Prospectiva e Planeamento 16:77–102.
Resolution of the Council of Ministers 163/2006. 2006. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no.
163/2006, de 12 de Dezembro. Diário da República, I série, 8316–8327. Lisbon: Imprensa
Nacional Casa da Moeda.
Downloaded by [University of Mysore ] at 03:48 06 May 2016

Resolution of the Council of Ministers 22/2003. 2003. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no.
22/2003, de 18 de Fevereiro de 2003. Diário da República, I série B, 1060–1077. Lisbon:
Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
Resolution of the Council of Ministers 82/2009. 2009. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no.
82/2009, de 8 de Setembro. Diário da República, I série, 6056–6088. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional
Casa da Moeda.
Resolution of the Council of Ministers 86/98. 1998. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no. 86/98,
de 10 de Julho. Diário da República, I série A, 3258–3260. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da
Moeda.
Resolution of the Council of Ministers 90/2008. 2008. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no.
90/2008, de 3 de Junho. Diário da República, I série, 3098–3099. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional
Casa da Moeda.
Ribeiro, O. 2011. Portugal, o Mediterrâneo e o Atlântico. Letra Livre. 231 pp.
Rocha, R. 2009. Planos de Ordenamento da Orla Costeira: O Passado, o Presente e o Futuro. In ARH
Tejo, 29–34. Os Planos de Ordenamento da Orla Costeira: Balanço e reflexões. MAOT.
Soares, L. 2008. Gestão do litoral e cidadania ambiental. GEOTA, IPJ, APL. Lisboa.
UN. 1992. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Envrionement & Development. Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Universidade de Aveiro/CEDRU. 2011. Relatório 1: Balanço da Implementação do Plano de Orde-
namento da Orla Costeira Ovar—Marinha Grande. INAG.
Veloso-Gomes, F. 2011. The strategy for integrated coastal zone management in Portugal. A com-
parison between the technical report proposals and the official document. Journal of Coastal
Research SI64:1430–1432.
Veloso-Gomes, F. and F. Taveira-Pinto. 2003. Portuguese coastal zones and the new coastal manage-
ment plans. Journal of Coastal Conservation 9:25–34.
Veloso-Gomes, F., F. Taveira-Pinto, L. das Neves, and J. P. Barbosa. 2003. Characterization of the
west coast of Portugal. Strecth River Douro (Porto)—Cape Mondego. In Good practices in
coastal zone management and coastal defence, ed. F. Taveira Pinto, 29–50. Porto: FCT, EUCC.
Williams, A. and A. Micallef. 2009. Beach management: Principles & practice. London: Earthscan.
Williams, A. T., A. Micallef, G. A. Anfuso, and J. B. Gallego-Fernandez. 2012. Andalucia, Spain:
An assessment of coastal scenery. Journal of Landscape Research 37 (3):327–350.