by Dave Grant
"There came to the beach a poor Exile of Erin." (Thomas Campbell")
Our attitude about the shore has changed with time. Beaches, especially the barrier islands, were considered worthless stretches of sand by colonial farmers, limited in resources by wood-cutters, and too hot or too distant for anyone but fishermen.
Treacherous to live on because of their ever-shifting sands, property lines here usually stretched across barrier islands from ocean to bay. This accommodated the landward push of the sea as it eroded the ocean beach and permitted the usual accretion on the bayside as the barrier islands migrated inland. This process also caused human retreat. When the shoreline shifted and threatened to destroy structures, they were often moved back from the water. There wasn't the will or the means to fight the sea in those days, just the common sense to give the ocean enough of a buffer.
Beginning in the middle 1800's, visiting the shore became fashionable for an increasingly mobile and affluent population. Beachgoers bound for the New Jersey coast crossed the Pine Barrens in trains from Philadelphia, and just farther north, trains traveled from Boston to Cape Cod. For a dollar, New Yorkers escaped the city heat on steamboats to the Jersey shore.
The rich established opulent summer "cottages" in enclaves at some of the most picturesque and geologically stable points along the coast. The middle classes stayed in hotels. And the poor did what they could, living in boarding houses or even as squatters on the shifting sands with the least value. Few stayed past September, and there was little incentive to linger at the shore other than to escape the heat of summer in some civilized manner.
As Thoreau wrote of Cape Cod in the 1800's, the truly wild beach is a "place unknown to the fashionable world and probably never agreeable to them." It was inevitable, perhaps, that with changes in our view of how the beach was to serve our needs, it had to be tamed.
In the 1950's coastal development accelerated dramatically for several reasons: population growth, transportation improvements, government subsidies to encourage development, and "shore protection " strategies. Even the ocean itself encouraged it.
During the last 40 years most of our population has concentrated within a few hours drive of the shore, and the sea has been unusually kind to the coast, especially in the Mid-Atlantic where the "Great Atlantic Hurricanes" of the 1800's and early 1900's raged. It's not clear why most of the storm tracks have shifted to the Gulf of Mexico, but it is thought they will return to the Atlantic shores someday soon. When that happens, it will bring devastation to people and property unprepared for a hit by a major storm.
The coast is where people now choose to live and play year-round, and in our rush to do so we tend to ignore the lesson learned by previous generations-that despite our best efforts, the shoreline is going to continue to move, usually where we don't want it to go.
Storms are intermittent, but obvious, short-term hazards to coastal residents. Long term considerations like global warming and sea level rise are more insidious, but probably as important a threat as storms.
One assumes that with some understanding of these forces, common sense would dictate how the coast is managed. Limiting development is the logical approach. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Because home-rule is a basic right that few town fathers are anxious to give up, state and federal plans to manage the shoreline usually meet considerable resistance and towns tend to favor economic development, rather than environmentally sound management of their shorelines.
In New Jersey barrier beaches represent less than 1% of the land area, however, these areas represent one-fifth of the real estate value of the state. Property assessments in shore areas of these narrow islands of sand are calculated in the billions of dollars so the pressure to develop and the political strength to resist state or federal "interference" are considerable. Compromises are made, and each year more unwise construction occurs. Shore-related tourism, a $3.5 billion industry, also exerts tremendous pressure on the coast. So, economic and social factors tend to prevail, and most of the coast is developed. What little natural beach remains is under attack from developers unless it is parkland, and even those areas are heavily impacted by recreational interests who want their share of the shore.
Efforts to keep beaches open, natural and accessible to all are more difficult each year, and the prospects of preserving the remaining undeveloped areas to accommodate shoreline retreat are slim if developmental pressures prevail.
It is important that people understand how dynamic the shoreline is and the value it serves in protecting the mainland; this is a great challenge to environmentalists and coastal planners.
In 1980 and 1988 I worked with college students to survey the attitudes of New Jersey beachgoers towards the shore and its development. From the surveys I hoped to learn about peoples' view of the shore, what they do there, and how they hope it will be developed.
Over 1200 people were interviewed, representing all of the counties in the state, and the data presented here represents a profile of "typical" New Jersey beachgoer. The median age of respondents is 32.3 years and the age range is 17 to 76. The data is consistent for both years and for the age groups surveyed, with a few exceptions. In most cases respondents favored open, undeveloped beaches, and passive recreation at the shore, but had mixed feelings about the management of the coast. In 1988 a question was added about public support for a coastal management commission, a hotly-debated topic here in the state.
Certain responses are not surprising. Most, (75 %) shore-related recreation is confined to the summer, but a significant amount of time is distributed during the "off-season" / spring and fall (22%), and the winter (3 %).
On the average, we visit the shore a dozen times a year, staying an average of two days. Most people rely on their own cars to get there, and even though a majority indicate that past gas shortages decreased their access to the shore, fewer than half would regularly use mass transit if it were provided.
How do we occupy our time? Sunning and swimming mostly (61 %), but a considerable amount of time is spent beach- combing (10%), fishing (8 %), and boating (6%) too. A very small number of people indicate they visit here for other activities like diving, and hunting, but 2 % go surfing today; twice the number in 1980.
In 1980, respondents compared New Jersey favorably to other states in seven of eight categories relating to beach quality and facilities. In 1988 favorable responses declined in all eight categories. Lingering memory of the pollution "crisis" this past summer is probably the cause of most of the change in attitude.
Eighty percent indicated that pollution problems at the shore reduced their activities, and majority of that group (60%), indicated this amounted to more than half of their typical use. It's not surprising then that only a fifth of the people feel that state and federal agencies are doing an effective job enforcing laws against pollution.
Respondents were much more critical of beach and water quality in 1988. Barely half (53%), rated public access as the same or better than other states; down from 72 % in eight years. Twenty-seven percent rated the beach quality (size, cleanliness, etc.) favorably, less than half the number in 1980. Worst of all was water quality. Only 16% rated it favorably; one third of the number in 1980.
Safety and emergency services are still rated highly (90% of respondents feel they are the same or better than other states), but New Jersey slipped ten to twenty points in the quality and availability of basic services like lockers, food, parking and amusements, and recreational services like fishing areas, piers, and boat rentals. On the average, 71% rated the state favorably in those areas; however fewer than half of the respondents (44%), are satisfied with the overall management of the coast by federal, state and local agencies.
Most people (78%), would support a law or commission that would control development along the shore to reduce the impacts of flooding, new construction and pollution, even if it results in towns losing "local control" over their rights to encourage or allow continued development. Surprisingly, even shore residents responded positively to this question. The establishment of such a "coastal commission" has been debated for some time in New Jersey and opposed by some politicians and developers who are concerned about outside restrictions over development. It appears they are not in tune with the attitude of the rest of the state.
Most people seem to have an environmentally sound attitude about the shore and realize it is a hazardous place to develop or would prefer to see it in a relatively undeveloped state. Only half feel there are enough areas open to the public and two-thirds would like the state to acquire more areas and increase access to them. Seventy-eight percent indicate that more undeveloped beaches are needed along the coast. Fewer people (41%) indicate they would like to see more camping areas; down from 76% in 1980. Even fewer (28%)feel more fishing areas are warranted, down almost a third in eight years. It seems from such responses that these activities are becoming less fashionable to New Jersey beachgoers, since there has been little improvement in the availability of such facilities in recent years. Indeed, in 1988, 21% indicated the need for more boardwalks and amusements, up about five percent in eight years. Least needed, according to the respondents, are more residences and hotels (11%), and industry (3 %).
The majority of people seem to be comfortable with the idea of more state or federal management of our beaches. More than half (57 %) of those surveyed, think state money should be used to maintain beaches (clean up, lifeguards, etc.), while less than 40 percent think that areas prone to flooding or storm damage should be insured with tax dollars. Most (81%), would rather see these areas left open and undeveloped.
From the data collected, it is obvious that the shore is an important attraction to many New Jersey residents and that they spend a considerable amount of time there. It appears that through insight or personal preference, the typical New Jersey beachgoer agrees with the environmentally-sound view that beaches should be open, lightly developed, areas that are accessible to everyone. It also is apparent that they feel there should be a different approach to the way we manage the shore and would support the establishment of a governing body to do it.
Something to think about:
- How has the lure of the beach changed historically?
- What questions would you want to ask beach goers?
- Does this article rely on fact or opinion?
