Some places at the Holderness coast are better protected than others, as protecting the whole of the coastline would be very expensive and pointless, as some places are more important than others. Some of the sea defence schemes used on the Holderness coast are: Rip-rap (boulders) coasting £3500 per meter are large interlocking man-made boulders that protect the coast by braking up the waves. Large boulders are strategically placed at the back of the beach to act as a barrier to brake up the wave and dissipate its energy. It can be effective, but a source of visual pollution- this could be good for the gas terminal as no tourists or travellers would go there. Groynes cost £10000 each, sited around 200 meters apart. It’s a low wall built out to sea that traps sand and reduces erosion. By trapping sediment it will help to build up the beach and thus protect the cliff. Material that would have been moved along the beach to protect other parts of the coast will be trapped by the groins. This could have problems further down coast- this is good for Mappleton village as it is a tourist sight and has no visual pollution, but having groins would be bad for Cowden farm. The sea wall is £5000 per meter. It is made of concrete or stone. Reflects waves and withstands waves breaking on it. Needs to be made of strong materials and can have problems if the waves scour out material from under the wall causing it to collapse- this is good for Withernsea as it is a major city at the Holderness coast but it would be bad if the wall collapsed.
There are many sea defence schemes some more effective than others. Some may be very expensive, environmentally damaging or not very effective.
I think that the beach rebuilding is the best as it doesn’t damage anything, it’s not expensive but it would have to be done at least once or twice a year because of long shore drift. It is good for the tourist industry as it has no visual pollution.
I think that the sea wall is very effective but it could collapse if any material is eroded from the bottom of the wall, I think this is not the effectiveness people would expect for their money as it is very expensive, and has visual pollution, and this would not attract many tourists.
If I had to defend the coastline from erosion I would put groins at Withernsea and at Mappleton town, this would make a beach that would attract tourists. I would put rip-rap at Eastington gas terminal, as a gas terminal would not be attractive for tourists to go. I would leave Barnston village, as half of the village has eroded away already, as the land erodes away the rock and sand would move along the coast by long-shore-drift making the beach at Mappleton town much bigger. In the North Sea I would put gabions to reduce erosion and to stabilise the back of the beach. All these defence schemes protect the major towns and villages, and don’t have a large amount of visual pollution. I wouldn’t use the sea wall, revetment nor offshore breakwater as these could erode away or collapse, they are a sign of visual pollution and are very expensive per meter. If spurn head was eroding away they could use beach rebuilding / nourishment. This replaces material lost by erosion each year. Material that has been lost by long-shore-drift is replaced with fresh material. This is and ongoing process and material often has to be replaced on an annual basis. This method has the advantage of having no visual pollution, and is thus favoured by the tourist industry, it is also very cheap.
I would also put a groin at spurn point because at Eastington gas terminal there are rocks which would eventually erode away. The eroded waste would travel along the beach by long-shore-drift taking it to the tip of spurn point. If this did happen it would make either a tombolo (a bar which one end is attached to the land and one end to another piece of land or and island) or a bigger split resulting from deposition, blocking the river. The groin would prevent this, instead making a beach.