Abstract
Worldwide, coastlines have been replaced and altered by hard infrastructures to protect cities and accommodate human activities. In addition, human settlements are common and increasing in lowland areas threatened by coastal risk hazards. These urbanisation processes cause severe socioeconomic and ecological losses which demand policy reforms towards better coastal management and climate resilience. A first step in that direction is to comprehend the status of coastal hardening and occupation of vulnerable areas. Here, we mapped the coastline of the most populous and developed state of Brazil: São Paulo (SP). Our goal was to quantify the linear extent of natural habitats, artificial structures (AS), and occupations in low-elevation coastal zones (≤ 5 m) within 100 m from marine environments (LECZ100m) along the coastline and within estuaries. SP coast has a total extent of 244 km of AS, of which 125 and 119 km correspond to AS running along the coastline (e.g., seawalls, breakwaters) and extending from the shoreline into adjacent waters (e.g., jetties, pontoons, groynes), respectively. 63% of the total extent of AS is located in the most urbanised region. Breakwalls were the most common infrastructure (108 km), followed by jetties and wharves (~40 km each), and aquaculture and fishing apparatus (~24 km). Over 300 km of the SP coastline has inland occupations in LECZ100m: 235 and 67 km are adjacent to sandy beaches and estuarine/river margins, respectively. Coastal hardening is advanced in the central region of SP resulting from intense port activities and armoured shorelines. In other regions, much of coastal urbanisation seems to be driven by secondary usage of the cities, such as real estate development for beach houses and tourism. Our findings suggest that coastal urbanisation poses a major but often neglected source of environmental impact and risk hazards in SP and Brazil.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The human population has been growing exponentially, leading to a rapid expansion of cities. Currently, we have exceeded 8 billion people, with projections indicating that we will surpass 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN 2022a). Urban growth has been particularly pronounced in coastal areas of developing countries (Firth et al. 2016; Merkens et al. 2016; Reimann et al. 2023). Approximately one-third of the global population (2.75 billion) already lives within 100 km of the coast. This figure rises to almost half of humanity (3.5 billion) when considering people living within elevations up to 100 m above sea level (Reimann et al. 2023). However, population growth – and consequently urbanisation – results in one of the most irreversible environmental impacts, being one of the major causes of habitat loss and biodiversity decline (McKinney 2002, 2006, 2008; Grimm et al. 2008; Todd et al. 2019).
Coastal areas not only hold disproportionately high populations but also face increased vulnerability to risk hazards intensified by climate change (McGranahan et al. 2007; Nicholls et al. 2008; Oppenheimer et al. 2019). Worldwide, coastal cities have been increasingly facing flooding and erosion as a result of storm surges, wave impact, and sea-level rise. Such events threaten the persistence of entire communities, causing enormous socioeconomical and environmental losses (Lincke and Hinckel 2021; Paprotny et al. 2021). Human settlements in low-elevation coastal zones (LECZ) – areas situated within elevations up to 10 m above sea level (McGranahan et al. 2007) – are particularly under increased risk hazards. Currently, about 900 million people live in LECZ (Reimann et al. 2023), with the population expected to continue growing throughout this century (Neumann et al. 2015; Merkens et al. 2016; Reimann et al. 2023).
As a result of urban expansion, natural coastal habitats have been progressively replaced with or altered by the construction of rigid artificial structures (AS) at the land-sea interface. This process is referred to as coastal hardening (Dugan et al. 2012). These AS include infrastructure for coastal protection (e.g., seawalls, breakwaters, groynes) and for port and nautical activities (e.g., quays, wharves, jetties, pontoons) (Bulleri and Chapman 2010; Gittman et al. 2015), built for the purpose of accommodating human needs without considering environmental sustainability. In many regions, all around the world, extensive portions of shorelines – often more than 50% – have already been replaced with or modified by AS (e.g., Gittman et al. 2015; Lai et al. 2015; Firth et al. 2016, 2024; Aguillera 2018; Floerl et al. 2021). To meet various urban demands and address the consequences of climate change, the construction of AS along coastlines is expected to increase substantially in the coming years, despite the impacts posed to the natural environment (Bugnot et al. 2021; Floerl et al. 2021).
Concern regarding the environmental impacts of AS on coastal habitats emerged in the 2000s, becoming a topic of great interest for science and society in the face of rapid urban sprawl. Studies ever since have demonstrated that AS support lower diversity and abundance of species than natural habitats (Chapman 2003; Gittman et al. 2016), facilitate the establishment of exotic species (Dafforn et al. 2012; Airoldi et al. 2015) and consequently cause changes in the composition of assemblages (Chapman and Bulleri 2003; Pardal-Souza et al. 2017) and the homogenization of biota (Bulleri and Chapman 2010). Furthermore, AS have been shown to alter ecosystem functions (Mayer-Pinto et al. 2018, Martinez et al. 2022a, b), ecological connectivity (Bishop et al. 2017), and energy transfer (Malerba et al. 2019). Preserving biodiversity and ecological functions of the marine environment is vital to maintain the valuable goods and services they provide, upon which society depends, such as fisheries, water quality, and climate regulation (Barbier et al. 2011; Austen et al. 2015).
As in most countries, anthropogenic pressure on the Brazilian coast is also elevated. Based on the last demographic census carried out in 2022, around a quarter of the population – 48.2 million people – lives in coastal municipalitiesFootnote 1 which represents only 5% of the national territory. When considering inhabitants living within 150 km from the ocean, this includes more than half of Brazil’s population (~110 million people) (IBGE 2022). Out of 17 Brazilian states with access to the sea, the capital of 14 is situated on the coastal territory, while two are nearby (Fig. 1). As of 2018, economic activities linked to the ocean and coast were estimated to provide more than 20 million jobs and contribute to nearly 20% of Brazil GDP (Carvalho 2022). However, as a result of long-term unsustainable occupation and usage the Brazilian coastal zone has been facing increasing environmental deterioration and loss of natural capital (Martínez et al. 2007; Martinez et al. 2022a, b). In recent years, political instability and poor environmental governance have worsened such panorama (Barbosa et al. 2021; Menezes and Barbosa Jr. 2021).
Among 26 states and a federal district, the state of São Paulo (SP) is the most populous and developed in Brazil. Over 44 million people live in this state – a population similar to Spain –, nearly 22% of the national population (IBGE 2022). Economically, SP contributes to 30-35% of the whole annual country GDP, being the largest economy in the whole South Atlantic. Much of its economic importance is linked to the biggest national port and industrial complex, both located on the coastal zone of the state. About 2.2 million people live on the SP coast, a figure that increased by 15.7% between 2010 and 2022 – the last two demographic censuses – while the populations of the SP state and Brazil increased by 7.6 and 6.5%, respectively (Table 1). Despite not being particularly populous, the SP coast is within 100 km from the São Paulo Metropolitan Region, one of the biggest urban agglomerations of the world with over 20 million inhabitants (IBGE 2022). As a result, the SP coast suffers with mass tourism, receiving millions of people during holidays and summer and experiencing strong real estate speculation driven by second-home market. Moreover, the SP coast has been increasingly facing climate-induced events and erosion (Rodríguez et al. 2016; dos Santos and Serrao-Neumann 2018; Nunes et al. 2019), causing socioeconomic and environmental losses and posing complex governance. Therefore, the SP coast is a strategic territory where its resilience to climate change will depend on mitigating impacts and adapting cities in response to unfolding changes. Overcoming such challenges relies on policy reforms aiming at sustainability and grounded on solid scientific knowledge.
Here, we identified and mapped the extent of (i) natural habitats, (ii) artificial structures, and (iii) occupations in low-elevation coastal zones near marine environments along the coastline and within estuaries of the state of São Paulo. This study provides the first large-scale detailed inventory of such metrics of coastal urbanisation in this state, in Brazil, and in the southwestern Atlantic. The baseline dataset generated in this research delivers valuable information for diverse stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, decision-makers, and engineers) to guide better coastal management towards achieving sustainability and climate resilience.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Study area
The territory of the SP coast is generally delimited by an abrupt change in elevation due to the Serra do Mar mountain range. The municipalities are squeezed into a narrow land strip between the sea and the mountain, mostly not wider than 20-30 km. The SP coast is formed by 16 municipalities divided into three regions – south, central, and north (Fig. 1C). Comprising 3 municipalities, the south region is the least populated, holding only 2.5% of the inhabitants of the SP coast. This area is characterised by extensive government-protected areas of Atlantic rainforest, and the economic activities are linked to tourism, fishing, and small-scale aquaculture and agriculture. The central region is the most populous and urbanised, with a population of ca. 1.8 million people (82% of inhabitants of the SP coast) distributed across 9 municipalities. This area has municipalities with over 300,000 inhabitants, and the main economic activities are linked to the Port of Santos – the biggest and busiest in Brazil – and the industrial complex of Cubatão – also the biggest in the country. This region has a long history of human occupation and usage, which resulted in intense urbanisation and environmental degradation (Moraes 2007; Lana et al. 2018). Lastly, the north region is formed by 4 municipalities and holds 16% of the population of the SP coast (Table 1). The main economic activities are linked to the Port of São Sebastião and a petrochemical terminal, in addition to tourism, fishing, and small-scale aquaculture. The south region is characterised by a coastal plain, with the occurrence of estuarine complexes bordered by mangrove forests, while the shoreline is dominated by dissipative sandy beaches (Lana et al. 2018; de Mahiques et al. 2016). In the north region, the intricate coastline is predominantly formed by rocky shores, with numerous and usually smaller reflective sandy beaches (de Mahiques et al. 2016; Pardal et al. 2023). The central region, in turn, shares the features of the other regions, being characterised by areas with estuarine habitats and dissipative beaches interspersed with rocky shores and reflective beaches.
2.2 The extent of coastal hardening in SP
We measured the linear extent, in metres, of natural habitats and artificial structures (AS) along the SP coastline and within estuaries through aerial images from Google Earth Pro software using the ‘path’ tool. AS were classified into infrastructure running along the coastline (ASc, e.g., seawalls, breakwaters) or extending out from the shoreline into adjacent waters (ASe, e.g., jetties, pontoons, groynes). ASc represent the amount of modified/armoured coastline and are a proxy for the extent of habitat loss. ASe, in turn, represent the amount of artificial hard substrates that were added to coastal habitats. Coastal hardening is represented by the combined ASc and ASe. AS were measured at ~50-100 m parallel to the ground. AS less than 5 m wide were measured by quantifying their extent drawing a line in their central area, while wider ones were contoured. For images of homogeneous landscapes, such as beaches, mangroves, and rocky shores, mapping was carried out up to 500 m from the ground. The limit of the coastline mapped inland was delimited by mangrove areas and river/estuarine margins with a width of less than 30 m. For gentle-slope waterfront areas, such as beaches, we visually identified the upper limit of high tides and used it to delimit the coastline contours. The coastal zone, in the marine environment, was demarcated within 12 nautical miles (i.e., 22.22 km) from the continent, following the legal delimitation of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. Islands within this distance were also considered.
AS were further classified into specific types, adapted from Floerl et al. (2021): (i) coastal protection breakwalls (i.e., structures such as seawalls, breakwaters, and groynes, generally built with concrete, rocks or a mixture of them); (ii) wharves (i.e., large structures commonly composed of pillars, reinforced with steel plates and covered with concrete, used for port activities and for docking large vessels); (iii) jetties (i.e., smaller structures for docking small vessels and used for leisure, commonly made of wood or concrete supported by pillarsFootnote 2); (iv) pontoons (i.e., structures with floating bases connected to fixed structures on land, generally made of concrete-coated polystyrene or polyethylene blocks); (v) buildings (i.e., overwater houses and other facilities supported by wooden or concrete pillars); and (vi) fishing and aquaculture apparatus (i.e., fish weir, mussel ropes, and oyster racks) (Supplementary Material, Fig. A1-A6). AS extent data were analysed for the entire SP coast, regions, and municipalities.
2.3 The extent of occupations in low-elevation coastal zones near marine environments in SP
Using the ‘path’ tool from Google Earth Pro software, we measured the extent of occupations in low-elevation coastal zones near marine environments (LECZ100m) along the coastline and within estuaries of SP. This was done by quantifying the linear extent of the coastline, in metres, with inland human settlements and urban infrastructure (e.g., cities, villages, highways) situated perpendicularly within 100 m away from marine environments and up to 5 m above sea level. These measurements did not include the coastline extent already replaced by artificial structures (i.e., ASc), although these are also situated in LECZ100m. The extent of coastline with inland occupations in LECZ100m provides data on areas with human settlements and assets under risk hazards and likely to be hardened in the future. LECZ are defined as areas with an elevation up to 10 m above sea level. Here we adopted an elevation up to 5 m above sea level to provide a more conservative scenario in consideration of estimative errors in Google Earth elevation data (average error = 0.51 m, accuracy = 1.85 m; El-Ashmawy 2016). Likewise, the 100 m inland horizontal delimitation considers conservative projections of shoreline retreat (Vousdoukas et al. 2020; Lansu et al. 2024). Moreover, lowland coastal areas in SP are under eminent risk hazards of, and already facing, flooding and erosion (e.g., Marengo et al. 2017; dos Santos and Serrao-Neumann 2018; Nunes et al. 2019). Under the described conditions, areas nearby sandy beaches and estuarine/river margins were included (Supplementary Material, Fig. A7). Rocky shores were not considered in this analysis because they are steep and provide natural coastal protection. The extents of the coastline with inland occupations in LECZ100m from sandy beaches and estuarine/river margins were analysed for the entire SP coast, regions, and by municipalities.
We also quantified the total extent of the soft coastline as the extent of estuarine/river margins plus sandy beaches, both with natural habitats and occupations in LECZ100m. Based on that, we calculated the percentage of the relative susceptible coastline as ((ASc + LECZ100m) / soft coastline)) × 100. This metric indicates the proportion of the coastline with adjacent human settlements and urban assets in lowland areas under risk hazards. We further quantified the total extent of natural areas for potential future hardening, i.e., total hardenable coastline, which was calculated as the sum of the extent of the coastline with natural habitats and with occupations in LECZ100m from estuarine/river margins. Sandy beaches were not used in this calculation because such habitats are unlikely to be replaced by AS at the intertidal zone. The percentage of hardened coastline considering the total hardenable coastline, i.e., relative hardened coastline, was calculated as (100 × ASc) / (ASc + hardenable coastline).
3 Results
3.1 General patterns of coastal hardening in SP
The total extent of artificial structures (AS) along the SP coast spans 244 km. From this total, 125 and 119 km correspond to AS running along the coastline (ASc, e.g., seawalls, breakwaters) and extending from the shoreline into adjacent waters (ASe, e.g., jetties, pontoons, groynes), respectively. 63% of the total extent of AS (154 km) is located in the central region. The north and south regions account for 22% (54 km) and 15% (36 km) of the remaining AS extent, respectively. In the central region, ASc (61%, 94 km) are more abundant than ASe (39%, 60 km). ASe, on the other hand, are more abundant in both the north (68%, 37 km) and south regions (62%, 22 km) (Table 2, Fig. 2A). The municipalities of Guarujá (56 km), Santos (49 km), and São Vicente (26 km) in the central region contain the greatest AS extents. For these municipalities, ASc are more common than ASe, ranging from 57 to 68% of their total AS extent. São Sebastião (19 km) and Ilhabela (15 km), in the north region, and Cananéia (19 km), in the south, are other municipalities with the following largest AS extents. For them, ASe are more common than ASc, ranging from 58 to 75% of their total AS extent (Fig. 2B).
3.2 AS types mapped in SP
Breakwalls are the most common AS type found on the SP coast, amounting to a total linear extent of 108 km, followed by jetties and wharves (~40 km each), and aquaculture and fishing apparatus (~24 km). Pontoons (18 km) and buildings (12 km) are the least common types (Fig. 3A). Breakwalls and wharves are concentrated in the central region, where they amount to an extent of 70 and 34 km, respectively. Moreover, there are 22 km of buildings and pontoons in the central region (~10 km each), while aquaculture and fishing apparatus are absent (Fig. 3B). In the north region, breakwalls (23 km) were also the most abundant AS, followed by aquaculture and fishing apparatus (11 km). Jetties (~8 km), wharves (7 km), and pontoons are also common (~5 km), but not buildings (~0.2 km) (Fig. 3C). In the south region, breakwalls (~14 km), aquaculture and fishing apparatus (13 km), and jetties (7 km) are the most common AS. Wharves are absent, while pontoons (1.5 km) and buildings (~0.5 km) are less abundant (Fig. 3D).
3.3 Occupations in low-elevation coastal zones near marine environments in SP
Over 300 km of the SP coast has occupations and urban infrastructure in low-elevation coastal zones near marine environments (LECZ100m) (Table 2). From this total, 235 and 67 km are situated within 100 m from sandy beaches (Fig. 4) and estuarine/river margins, respectively (Fig. 5). Considering all habitats, the central region amounts to an extent of 149 km of the coastline with occupations in LECZ100m, followed by the north (108 km) and south regions (45 km). Relative to the extent of the soft coastline, the susceptible coastline is greater in the north region (77%), followed by the central (~42%) and the south (6%) (Table 2).
3.3.1 Occupations in LECZ100m from sandy beaches
The mapped extent of sandy beaches on the SP coast amounts to ~423 km, of which 55% (~235 km) has occupations in LECZ100m. While the total extent of sandy beaches is similar among the three regions (i.e., ~140 km each), the sandy beaches from the central and north regions are already massively urbanised: 81% (117 km) and 74% (100 km) of their total extent have occupations in LECZ100m, respectively. In the south region, the pattern is contrary: 77% (125 km) of the total extent of sandy beaches have natural formations in LECZ100m (Table 2, Fig. 4A). From the 8 cities with sandy beaches in the central region, 6 of them have 85-100% of their extent with occupations in LECZ100m. Peruíbe (54%) and Bertioga (62%) were the municipalities with less occupation in LECZ100m (Fig. 4B). The sandy beaches from the municipalities in the north region also have high degree of occupation in LECZ100m, ranging from 63 to 89% (Fig. 4B). Finally, in the south region, the municipality of Ilha Comprida amounts to 21% (~14 km) of the extent of sandy beaches with occupations in LECZ100m, while Cananéia and Iguape have only 3% (~1 km) and 5% (~2 km) (Fig. 4B).
3.3.2 Occupations in LECZ100m from estuarine and river margins
We mapped 1,250 km of coastline near estuarine and river margins on the SP coast, which are situated in the south (63%, 787 km), central (35%, 437 km), and north regions (2%, 26 km). From the total mapped extent, 95% (1,183 km) still have natural formations (e.g., mangrove, rainforest, mudflats) in LECZ100m: 760 km (97%), 405 km (93%), and 19 km (72%) in the south, central, and north regions, respectively (Table 2, Fig. 5A and 5B). Occupations and urban infrastructure in LECZ100m occur in the remaining 67 km (5%) of the coastline, most of it in the central (48%, 32 km) and south (41%, 27 km) regions, with only 7 km in the north (Fig. 5C). Moreover, Iguape (~14 km), in the south, and Santos (~9 km), in the central region, are the municipalities with the largest extents of the coastline with occupations in LECZ100m from estuarine and river margins (Fig. 5C). The total extents of hardenable coastline in the south, central, and north regions are ~787, 437, and 26 km, respectively. The relative hardened coastline is greater in the north region (40%), followed by the central (~18%) and the south (~2%) (Table 2).
4 Discussion
The results of our study indicate that coastal urbanisation, in the form of coastal hardening and occupations in lowlands, is a major yet largely overlooked source of environmental impact and risk hazard in SP and Brazil. We have shown that the SP coast has a total linear extent of 244 km of hard artificial structures (AS), with 63% of them occurring in the most urbanised region. Breakwalls, jetties, and wharves represent 78% of these structures. AS running along the coastline (ASc, e.g., seawalls, breakwaters) accounts for 9% (125 km) of the ‘hardenable’ extent of the SP coast (Table 2). Additionally, our study revealed that 301 km of the SP coast has inland occupations in low-elevation coastal zones within 100 m from marine environments (LECZ100m). When considering ASc – which are also situated in LECZ100m –, the combined extent amounts to 427 km. This indicates that over 25% of the SP soft coastline has adjacent settlements and urban assets in areas susceptible to erosion and flooding (Table 2).
4.1 Coastal hardening in SP
The clustering of coastal infrastructure around populous and port cities is a global pattern (e.g., Dafforn et al. 2015; Firth et al. 2016, 2024; Floerl et al. 2021; Claassens et al. 2022). Accordingly, coastal hardening is advanced in the central region of the SP coast, which concentrated 63% (154 km) of the total extent of AS measured in this study. The extent of ASc alone (94 km) represents nearly 18% of its ‘hardenable’ coastline (Table 2). The central region has a long history of occupation associated with the construction and expansions of the Port of Santos and early industrialisation (Moraes 2007). Moreover, municipalities in this region have settlements historically situated on floodable areas and near eroding shorelines, which have propelled the introduction of coastal defence infrastructure (Souza et al. 2019). The majority of AS measured in the central region were breakwalls and wharves (68%, 104 km). This suggests that the proliferation of AS primarily arises from port activities and coastal armouring (Supplementary Material, Fig. A8 and A9). Considering projections for sea-level rise and increasing flooding risks (Marengo et al. 2017) alongside the Port of Santos' development strategy to double its land area (SPA 2020), it is expected that shoreline armouring and port operation will increasingly contribute to coastal hardening in the central region.
In the south and north regions of the SP coast, breakwalls were also the most common AS, although their extents were 3-5 times less than in the central region. The presence of these infrastructures beyond urban centres reflects past engineering interventions to stabilise and protect sedimentary coastlines and facilitate sea access (Bugnot et al. 2021). More recently, AS such as groynes, seawalls, and breakwaters have been built in response to increasing coastal erosion and flooding (Rodríguez et al. 2016; Barros et al. 2021) (Supplementary Material, Fig. A10). In the south and north regions, fishing and aquaculture infrastructure ranked as the second most widespread AS, and the most prevalent type extending from the shoreline into adjacent waters (ASe), adding 24 km of hard constructions into the sea. Such results are associated with the history of artisanal fishing and small-scale mussel/oyster farming in these regions, where water quality seems to be more appropriate for such activities. We identified three types of fishing and aquaculture apparatus: fish weirs (69%, 16.4 km), mussel ropes (18%, 4.2 km), and oyster racks (14%, 3.2 km) (Supplementary Material, Fig. A6). It is important to note that the reported measurements are probably conservative estimates, as they derive from satellite imagery captured during favourable sea conditions, which can vary spatially and temporally. The physical footprint of aquaculture, expected to increase in the next years, is one of the most extensive in the world (Bugnot et al. 2021), with projections for its expansion also in Brazil (FAO 2020). Thus, fishing and aquaculture are important drivers of coastal hardening on less developed areas of SP and may continue to do so (Valenti et al. 2021). The increase of aquaculture, however, may intensify current tensions with local artisanal fisheries (Prado et al. 2022). A better understanding of the extension and spatialization of these activities is crucial for improving spatial marine planning and mitigating those conflicts.
Jetties were the most common coastal infrastructure among ASe, adding up over 40 km of hard structures on the SP coast. These structures were also the second most common type identified in our study, ranking third in all three regions. Pontoons, on the other hand, contributed to an extra 18 km of AS in the study area. Most of the jetties (67%; 369 out of 548) were privately-owned structures associated with houses and marinas. This trend was more pronounced for pontoons (94%; 423 out of 451). The proliferation of jetties and pontoons seems associated with the secondary usage of coastal cities, with fluctuating migrations driven by second-home ownership and tourism in the coast of Brazil (Moraes 2007). These migrations have created and expanded markets for nautical and leisure activities, which encompasses services such as boat sales, rentals, and repairs, marina operation, tourist cruises, boat tours, diving, and offshore charter fishing (da Fonseca et al. 2015; Sanguinet and Sass 2022). Collectively, these activities have increased the demand for building infrastructure for sea accessibility and docking. The remaining jetties are primarily associated with public transportation within and among municipalities, in the form of bridges, ferry and passenger terminals, and public piers.
Amid economic expansion, population increases, and migratory patterns fuelling urbanisation in the Brazilian coast, with a legacy of colonialism and persistent social inequalities, a segment of the population remains outside the formal economy (Moraes 2007). Such marginalised people end up settling in vulnerable territories and protected areas such as floodable terrains, hillslopes, and mangroves (Moraes 2007). In our study we detected that 91% (~10 km) of the total AS extent classified as buildings refers to stilt houses – locally known as palafitas – situated along estuarine margins in the central region of the SP coast. These are extremely precarious habitations sustained by pillars built over wetlands (Fonseca Feitosa et al. 2021). Although substantial, the extent of AS provided by such habitations is underestimated in our study. These settlements spread over intertidal areas once occupied by mangroves and tidal flats, but here we only quantified their linear length. Palafitas in Santos municipality alone, for instance, span over 350,000 m2, while São Vicente, Cubatão, and Guarujá also have these settlements (Supplementary Material, Fig. A5 and A8). Beyond severe humanitarian, socioeconomic, and other environmental problems, these settlements also contribute to coastal hardening in SP – although this is hardly the main concern in this situation. Currently there is a project to transform these habitations, providing better living conditions for people and increasing surrounding environmental quality (Fassina et al. n.d.). This project provides an opportunity for developing a habitational model also taking nature into account in terms of recovering native biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Shifts in physical conditions, habitat loss, and decline in biodiversity and ecosystem functions are some of the main impacts associated with coastal artificial infrastructure (Bulleri and Chapman 2010; Dugan et al. 2012; Heery et al. 2017). In Brazil, a recent review revealed that research on the ecological impacts of coastal hardening has focused on artificial reefs and fishery ecology, with 66 invasive exotic species found in association with AS (A.S. Martinez, pers. comm.). Despite being a major source of environmental impacts, as suggested by our mappings and literature, coastal hardening is still an overlooked theme in national research. Our assessment thereby helps fulfilling an important gap to comprehend the impacts of coastal urbanisation and support management strategies. For instance, data on the extent and localization of AS are essential for understanding potential paths for bioinvasion (Bishop et al. 2017). In the future, expanding mappings of AS and identifying drivers of coastal hardening in Brazil will provide a more thorough comprehension of its impacts and how to manage them. Finally, we highlight that some common and often abundant AS such as artificial reefs, shipwrecks, submarine cables and pipelines, vessel hulls, and offshore platforms (Bugnot et al. 2021; Lemasson et al. 2024) were not mapped in our research due to methodological approach and study scope. The extent of AS in SP coast is, therefore, even larger.
4.2 Occupations in LECZ100m in SP
One-quarter of the soft coastline of SP has inland settlements and urban assets in LECZ100m, mostly (78%) adjacent to sandy beaches. This figure represents more than half of the extent of sandy beaches, reaching 74 and 81% in the north and central regions, respectively (Table 2). These alarming results reveal a process of coastal squeeze far intense than the global pattern, where 33% of sandy shores harbour less than 100 m of infrastructure-free space (Lansu et al. 2024). Extensive occupation of areas near sandy beaches reflects strong real estate speculation upon these highly valued territories, much of it driven by second-home market (Supplementary Material, Fig. A11). Six out of sixteen municipalities on the SP coast (Ilha Comprida, Peruíbe, Itanhaém, Mongaguá, Bertioga, and Ubatuba) has more permanently and occasionally empty houses (52.7 to 62.7%) than permanently occupied ones (IBGE 2022). At the same time, SP has been increasingly facing flooding and coastal erosion due to extreme rains, storm surges, wave impact, and sea-level rise (e.g., de Mahiques et al. 2016; dos Santos and Serrao-Neumann 2018; Nunes et al. 2019). As a result, engineering interventions to protect urban assets have been, and are expected to be, implemented as the impacts of climate change intensify. Beach nourishment, for instance, has recently become popular in Brazil, with some projects already executed (Barros et al. 2021; Soares-Gomes et al. 2023) and many others are planned and underway. Such interventions, however, are a palliative solution that can result in several unwanted impacts (de Schipper et al. 2021). Wherever possible, nature-based approaches, such as conservation and restauration of habitats, deliver long-term better solutions (Morris et al. 2018; Manes et al. 2023). Although promising, such initiatives are not yet a common practice in Brazil (Barros et al. 2021; Soares-Gomes et al. 2023).
Occupations in lowlands near to estuarine and river margins are also expressive in SP, considering that much of the hardened coastline is situated within estuaries. Unlike beachfront locations, these regions have historically been overlooked by the real estate market and are considered permanent preservation areas according to federal environmental law (Moraes 2007). Nonetheless, such territories became main residential areas for low-income and marginalised population, especially in the central region of the SP coast (Fonseca Feitosa et al. 2021). To make matters worse, amendments to the environmental law in 2012 paved the way for legitimising occupation of these territories under the guise of public utility and social interest principles (Azevedo and Oliveira 2014). In the face of sea-level rise and increase in the frequency and intensity of climate-induced coastal hazards, this reality poses major governance challenges due to the overlap of the greatest social and environmental vulnerabilities (Fassina et al. n.d.). In this context, managerial actions towards mitigation and adaptation are urgent to attain climate resilience and climate justice (UN 2019a, 2022b).
5 Conclusion
This study presents a detailed large-scale assessment of coastline urbanisation in the state of São Paulo, providing valuable data for decision-making on urban and marine spatial planning. Our results indicate significant coastal hardening and occupation of lowland areas in São Paulo, with heterogenous patterns along the assessed regions. With increasing coastal hazards, engineering interventions to protect coastlines and restore habitats are expected to intensify. This calls for scientifically sound managerial actions towards mitigating impacts and adapting cities in line with sustainability principles. Without disregarding context-dependent realities, we propose the following strategies:
-
1)
Protection of natural areas. Mangrove fringes, riparian vegetation, and beachfront vegetation should be protected as they provide natural defence against climate-induced coastal hazards, reducing economic and social losses (e.g., Zamboni et al. 2022). Despite the significant presence of preservation areas along the São Paulo coast, only a small portion encompasses immediate beachfront areas. To address this strategy, expansion of existing preservation areas and creation of new ones may be necessary. Furthermore, legal provisions enabling the occupation of permanent preservation areas (e.g., mangroves and river margins) should be reconsidered.
-
2)
Restoration of impacted natural areas. Where feasible, estuarine/river margins and beachfront areas should be revegetated. Nature-based approaches offer promising solutions, with the possibility of implementing 'soft' and hybrid interventions (Morris et al. 2018, 2019; Firth et al. 2024). However, it is important to note that even these methods are not universally applicable or necessarily sustainable practices (Parkinson and Ogurcak 2018).
-
3)
Revitalisation of highly urbanised areas and hard eco-engineering. Upgrading areas already replaced or altered by artificial infrastructure presents an opportunity to manage coastal hazards and restore native biodiversity while sustaining ecosystem services (Mayer-Pinto et al. 2017; Morris et al. 2018, 2019; Airoldi et al. 2021; Firth et al. 2024). Marine eco-engineering offers a viable option to achieve these goals, which depends on local knowledge (Strain et al. 2018). This is also applicable for future interventions in areas where ‘soft’ approaches are not viable (Morris et al. 2018, 2019). This approach differs from traditional engineering by explicitly addressing concern on environmental sustainability. To address this strategy in Brazil, developing research on marine eco-engineering is necessary. In applying this approach caution is needed to avoid bluewashing (Firth et al. 2020, 2024).
Our recommendations aim to promote resilience and sustainability in coastal areas, safeguarding both the environment, the economy, and the well-being of local communities. Their success, however, will inevitably depend on political and social engagement and goodwill. Tackling this challenge requires educational efforts and enhanced dialogue with society to raise consciousness about the perils arising from climate change, as well as the consequences of unsustainable coastal development and exploitation.
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study will be made available in the public repository GitHub (https://github.com/andrepardal/Coastal-hardening-SP-Brazil).
Notes
Brazil comprises of a total of 5,568 municipalities, with 443 officially recognised as situated within the terrestrial boundaries of the coastal zone (MMA/Brasil 2021) (Fig. 1B). Among these, 279 municipalities directly face the sea, while others may be located further inland, yet are closely influenced by ocean processes.
Due to similar structural features, bridges, railroads, and suspended pipelines were also included in this category.
References
Aguilera MA (2018) Artificial defences in coastal marine ecosystems in Chile: opportunities for spatial planning to mitigate habitat loss and alteration of the marine community structure. Ecol Eng 120:601–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.021
Airoldi L, Turon X, Perkol-Finkel S, Rius M (2015) Corridors for aliens but not for natives: Effects of marine urban sprawl at a regional scale. Divers Distrib 21:755–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12301
Airoldi L, Beck MW, Firth LB, Bugnot AB, Steinberg PD, Dafforn KA (2021) Emerging solutions to return nature to the urban ocean. Annu Rev Mar Sci 13:445–477. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-032020-020015
Austen M, Hattam C, Borger T (2015) Ecosystem services and benefits from marine ecosystems. In: Crowe TP, Frid CLJ (eds) Marine Ecosystems: Human Impacts on Biodiversity. Functioning and Services, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, pp 21–41
Azevedo RES, Oliveira VPV (2014) Reflexos do novo Código Florestal nas Áreas de Preservação Permanente – APPs – urbanas. DMA 29:71–91
Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR (2011) The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr 81:169–193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1
Barbosa LG, Alves MAS, Grelle CEV (2021) Actions against sustainability: dismantling of the environmental policies in Brazil. Land Use Pol 104:105384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105384
Barros EL, de Paula DP, Guerra RGP, de Oliveira Santos J (2021) Erosion and Coastal Structures in Brazilian Metropolises: The Case of Fortaleza and Its Inequalities. In: Singh RB, Chatterjee S, Mishra M, de Lucena AJ (ed) Practices in Regional Science and Sustainable Regional Development. Springer, Singapore, pp. 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2221-2_6
Bishop MJ, Mayer-Pinto M, Airoldi L et al (2017) Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 492:7–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.021
Bugnot AB, Mayer-Pinto M, Airoldi L et al (2021) Current and projected global extent of marine built structures. Nat Sustain 4:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00595-1
Bulleri F, Chapman MG (2010) The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. J Appl Ecol 47:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01751.x
Carvalho AB (2022) O Brasil do mar e da costa: uma abordagem econômica. In: Santos T, Beirão AP, Araújo Filho MC, Carvalho AB (ed) Economia Azul: Vetor para o desenvolvimento do Brasil. Essential Idea Editora, São Paulo, SP, pp 658–587
Chapman MG (2003) Paucity of mobile species on constructed seawalls: Effects of urbanization on biodiversity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 264:21–29. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps264021
Chapman MG, Bulleri F (2003) Intertidal seawalls - new features of landscape in intertidal environments. Landsc Urban Plan 62:159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00148-2
Claassens L, de Villiers NM, Waltham NJ (2022) How developed is the South African coast? Baseline extent of South Africa’s coastal and estuarine infrastructure. Ocean Coast Manag 222:106112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106112
Dafforn KA, Glasby TM, Johnston EL (2012) Comparing the Invasibility of Experimental ‘“Reefs”’ with Field Observations of Natural Reefs and Artificial Structures. PLoS One 7:e38124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038124
Dafforn KA, Glasby TM, Airoldi L, Rivero NK, Mayer-Pinto M, Johnston EL (2015) Marine urbanization: an ecological framework for designing multifunctional artificial structures. Front Ecol Environ 13:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1890/140050
de Schipper MA, Ludka BC, Raubenheimer B, Luijendijk AP, Schlacher TA (2021) Beach nourishment has complex implications for the future of sandy shores. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2:70–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-00109-9
Dugan JE, Airoldi L, Chapman MG, et al. (2012) Estuarine and Coastal Structures: Environmental Effects, A Focus on Shore and Nearshore Structures. In: Wolanski E, McLusky D (ed) Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science 8:17–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-2.00802-0
El-Ashmawy KLA (2016) Investigation of the accuracy of google earth elevation data. Artif Satell 51:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/arsa-2016-0008
FAO – Food and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations (2020) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Fassina CM, Pardal A, Martinez AS, Prado DS, Christofoletti RA (in press) (n.d.) Justiça climática e habitação popular: O onde a população mais vulnerável enfrenta(rá) o risco climático. In: Gonçalves LR, Torres PHC, Arruda Filho MT (ed) Justiça climática em regiões costeiras no Brasil. Paco Editorial, São Paulo
Firth LB, Knights AM, Bridger D et al (2016) Ocean sprawl: Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity management in a changing world. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 54:189–262. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315368597
Firth LB, Airoldi L, Bulleri F et al (2020) Greening of grey infrastructure should not be used as a Trojan horse to facilitate coastal development. J Appl Ecol 57:1762–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13683
Firth LB, Bone J, Bartholomew A, et al. (2024) Coastal greening of grey infrastructure: an update on the state-of-the-art. Proc Inst Civ Eng Marit Eng 1–69. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmaen.2023.003
Floerl O, Atalah J, Bugnot AB et al (2021) A global model to forecast coastal hardening and mitigate associated socioecological risks. Nat Sustain 4:1060–1067. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00780-w
da Fonseca MAP, De Olivera EJ, Batista JLDV (2015) Seasonality, flexibility and dynamic of services in leisure spaces of the Potiguar coast (Brazil). Am J Tour Res 30:68–78. https://doi.org/10.11634/216837861504673
Fonseca Feitosa F, Vasconcelos VV, Pinho CM, Silva GF, Silva Gonçalves G, Danna LC, Lisboa FS (2021) IMMerSe: An integrated methodology for mapping and classifying precarious settlements. Appl Geogr 133:102494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102494
Gittman RK, Fodrie FJ, Popowich AM et al (2015) Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Front Ecol Environ 13:301–307. https://doi.org/10.1890/150065
Gittman RK, Scyphers SB, Smith CS, Neylan IP, Grabowski JH (2016) Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. Bioscience 66:763–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw091
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu JG, Bai XM, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195
Heery EC, Bishop MJ, Critchley LP et al (2017) Identifying the consequences of ocean sprawl for sedimentary habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 492:31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.020
IBGE – Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2022) 2022 Population census of Brazil. https://censo2022.ibge.gov.br/panorama/. Accessed 10 Jan 2024
Lai S, Loke LHL, Hilton MJ, Bouma TJ, Todd PA (2015) The effects of urbanisation on coastal habitats and the potential for ecological engineering: a Singapore case study. Ocean Coast Manag 103:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.006
Lana PC, Christofoletti RA, Gusmão Jr., et al. (2018). Benthic Estuarine Assemblages of the Southeastern Brazil Marine Ecoregion (SBME). In: Lana PC, Bernardino A (ed) Brazilian Estuaries. A benthic Perspective. Brazilian Marine Biodiversity. Springer, Cham, pp 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77779-5_5
Lansu EM, Reijers VC, Höfer S et al (2024) A global analysis of how human infrastructure squeezes sandy coasts. Nat Commun 15:432. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44659-0
Lemasson AJ, Somerfield PJ, Schratzberger M et al (2024) A global meta-analysis of ecological effects from offshore marine artificial structures. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01311-z
Lincke D, Hinkel J (2021) Coastal migration due to 21st century sea-level rise. Earth’s Future 9:e2020EF001965. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001965
de Mahiques MM, Siegle E, Alcántara-Carrió J, Silva FG, de Oliveira Sousa PHG, Martins CC (2016) The Beaches of the State of São Paulo. In: Short A, Klein A (eds) Brazilian Beach Systems. Coastal Research Library 17. Springer, Cham, pp 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30394-9_15
Malerba ME, White CR, Marshall DJ et al (2019) The outsized trophic footprint of marine urbanization. Front Ecol Environ 17:400–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2074
Manes S, Gama-Maia D, Vaz S et al (2023) Nature as a solution for shoreline protection against coastal risks associated with ongoing sea-level rise. Ocean Coast Manag 235:106487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106487
Marengo JA, Nunes LH, Souza CRG et al (2017) A globally deployable strategy for co-development of adaptation preferences to sea-level rise: the public participation case of Santos, Brazil. Nat Hazards 88:39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2855-x
Martínez ML, Intralawan A, Vázquez G, Pérez-Maqueo O, Sutton P, Landgrave R (2007) The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol Econ 63:254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022
Martinez AS, Dafforn KA, Johnston EL, Filippini G, Potts J, Mayer-Pinto M (2022) Variations in benthic fluxes of sediments near pier pilings and natural rocky reefs. Mar Environ Res 177:105640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2022.105640
Martinez AS, Underwood T, Christofoletti RA et al (2022) Reviewing the effects of contamination on the biota of Brazilian coastal ecosystems: Scientific challenges for a developing country in a changing world. Sci Total Environ 803:150097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150097
Mayer-Pinto M, Johnston EL, Bugnot AB, Glasby TM, Airoldi L, Mitchell A, Dafforn KA (2017) Building ‘blue’: an eco-engineering framework for foreshore developments. J Environ Manage 189:109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.039
Mayer-Pinto M, Cole VJ, Johnston EL, Bugnot AB, Hurst H, Airoldi L, Glasby TM, Dafforn KA (2018) Functional and structural responses to marine urbanisation. Environ Res Lett 13:014009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa98a5
McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urban 19:17–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247807076960
McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2
McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005
McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4
Menezes RG, Barbosa R Jr (2021) Environmental governance under Bolsonaro: dismantling institutions, curtailing participation, delegitimising opposition. Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 15:229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-021-00491-8
Merkens JL, Reimann L, Hinkel J, Vafeidis AT (2016) Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob Planet Change 145:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.08.009
MMA/Brasil – Ministry of Environment, Federal Government of Brazil (2021) Portaria MMA Nº 34, de 2 de fevereiro de 2021. Aprova a listagem atualizada dos municípios abrangidos pela faixa terrestre da zona costeira brasileira. https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-mma-n-34-de-2-de-fevereiro-de-2021-302053267. Accessed 10 Feb 2024
Moraes ACR (2007) Contribuições para a gestão da zona costeira do Brasil: Elementos para uma Geografia do Litoral Brasileiro. Annablume, São Paulo
Morris RL, Konlechner TM, Ghisalberti M, Swearer SE (2018) From grey to green: efficacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal defence. Glob Chang Biol 24:1827–1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14063
Morris RL, Heery EC, Loke LHL et al (2019) Design options, implementation issues and evaluating success of ecologically engineered shorelines. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 57:169–228
Neumann B, Vafeidis AT, Zimmermann J, Nicholls RJ (2015) Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global assessment. PLoS One 10:e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571
Nicholls RJ, Wong PP, Burkett V et al (2008) Climate change and coastal vulnerability assessment: Scenarios for integrated assessment. Sustain Sci 3:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0050-4
Nunes LH, Greco R, Marengo JA (2019) Climate Change in Santos Brazil: Projections, Impacts and Adaptation Options. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96535-2
Oppenheimer M, Glavovic BC, Hinkel J, et al. (2019) Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, et al. (ed) IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 321–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.006
Paprotny D, Terefenko P, Giza A et al (2021) Future losses of ecosystem services due to coastal erosion in Europe. Sci Total Environ 760:144310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144310
Pardal A, Martinez AS, Ciotti AM, Christofoletti RA, Cordeiro CAMM (2023) Macroecology of rocky intertidal benthic communities along the southwestern Atlantic: patterns of spatial variation and associations with natural and anthropogenic variables. Mar Environ Res 190:106099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106099
Pardal-Souza AL, Dias GM, Jenkins SR, Ciotti AM, Christofoletti RA (2017) Shading impacts by coastal infrastructure on biological communities from subtropical rocky shores. J Appl Ecol 54:826–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12811
Parkinson RW, Ogurcak DE (2018) Beach nourishment is not a sustainable strategy to mitigate climate change. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 212:203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.07.011
Prado DS, Martins IM, Christofoletti RA (2022) Pesca artesanal e conflitos costeiros e marinhos no litoral de São Paulo (SP). Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Santos, São Paulo. ISBN 978-65-87312-39-2
Reimann L, Vafeidis AT, Honsel LE (2023) Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures 1:e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.3
Rodríguez MG, Nicolodi JL, Gutiérrez OQ, Losada VC, Hermosa AE (2016) Brazilian Coastal Processes: Wind, Wave Climate and Sea Level. In: Short A, Klein A (ed) Brazilian Beach Systems. Coastal Research Library 17. Springer, Cham, pp 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30394-9_2
Sanguinet ER, Sass KS (2022) Turismo Azul no Brasil: Aspectos conceituais e caracterização. In: Santos T, Beirão AP, Araújo Filho MC, Carvalho AB (ed) Economia Azul: Vetor para o desenvolvimento do Brasil. Essential Idea Editora, São Paulo, SP, pp 759–777
dos Santos FM, Serrao-Neumann S (2018) Climate and Environmental Perception and Governance in Coastal Areas: The Case of Ilha Comprida, São Paulo, Brazil. In: Leal Filho W, Esteves de Freitas L (ed) Climate Change Adaptation in Latin America: Managing Vulnerability, Fostering Resilience. Springer, Cham, pp 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56946-8_24
Soares-Gomes A, Zalmon IR, Machado PM, Costa LL (2023) Threats and Impacts. In: Amaral ACZ, Checon HH, Corte GN (ed) Brazilian Sandy Beaches. Brazilian Marine Biodiversity. Springer, Cham, pp 257–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30746-1_9
Souza CRG, Souza AP, Harari J (2019) Long Term Analysis of Meteorological-Oceanographic Extreme Events for the Baixada Santista Region. In: Nunes L, Greco R, Marengo J (ed) Climate Change in Santos Brazil: Projections, Impacts and Adaptation Options. Springer, Cham, pp 97–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96535-2_6
SPA – Santos Port Authority (2020) Plano de Desenvolvimento e Zoneamento do Porto de Santos. https://intranet.portodesantos.com.br/docs_codesp/doc_codesp_pdf_site.asp?id=140194. Accessed 25 Feb 2024
Strain EM, Olabarria C, Mayer-Pinto M et al (2018) Eco-engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit? J Appl Ecol 55:426–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12961
Todd PA, Heery EC, Loke LHL et al (2019) Towards an urban marine ecology: characterizing the drivers, patterns and processes of marine ecosystems in coastal cities. Oikos 128:1215–1242. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05946
UN – United Nations Human Rights Council (2019a) Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 12 July 2019. 41/21. Human rights and climate change, 23 July 2019, A/HRC/RES/41/21
UN – United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022a) World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/NO. 3
UN – United Nations Human Rights Council (2022b) Towards a just transition: the climate crisis and the right to adequate housing. Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to nondiscrimination in this context, 27 December 2022, A/HRC/52/28
Valenti WC, Barros HP, Moraes-Valenti P, Bueno GW, Cavalli RO (2021) Aquaculture in Brazil: past, present and future. Aquac Rep 19:100611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100611
Vousdoukas MI, Ranasinghe R, Mentaschi L et al (2020) Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nat Clim Chang 10:260–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0697-0
Zamboni NS, da Cunha Prudêncio M, Amaro VE, de Matos MFA, Verutes GM, Carvalho AR (2022) The protective role of mangroves in safeguarding coastal populations through hazard risk reduction: a case study in northeast Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag 229:106353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106353
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to Oliver Floerl, Ana Bugnot and Mariana Mayer-Pinto for their guidance on mapping. We deeply appreciate our colleagues Deborah Prado, Caroline Fassina, and Ivan Laurino for their valuable feedback on the early manuscript version, as well as the comments and suggestions from Dr. Eli Lazarus and two anonymous reviewers. This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq - AP: 151903/2022-0; ASM: 152158/2022-7) and São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP - ASM: 2016/11947-7; RAC: 2019/24416-8).
Funding
This work was funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq - AP: 151903/2022-0; ASM: 152158/2022-7) and São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP - ASM: 2016/11947-7; RAC: 2019/24416-8).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by André Pardal and Aline S. Martinez. The first draft of the manuscript was written by André Pardal and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pardal, A., Christofoletti, R.A. & Martinez, A.S. Urbanisation on the coastline of the most populous and developed state of Brazil: the extent of coastal hardening and occupations in low-elevation zones. Anthropocene Coasts 7, 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44218-024-00048-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44218-024-00048-8