assessing morphological landscape carrying …nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/34490/1/ijms...

Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences Vol. 43(8), August 2014, pp. 1500-1512

Assessing morphological landscape carrying capacity for coastal areas in Kuwait Baby, S.1&2

1Birla Institute of Technology, Department of Remote Sensing & Geoinformatics, Mesra, India. 2GEO Environmental Consultation, Hawally, P. O. Box: 677, Al-Surra 4507, Kuwait.

[E-mail: [email protected]]

Received 13 February 2013; revised 11 June 2013

An evaluation study on intrinsic carrying capacity was carried out explicitly and implicitly for morphological landscape for coastal interface. Multiple data layers were used to create a carrying capacity layer which was adjusted using sensitive y factors to support determination of setback distances from the coastline. From the percentage of area covered by each carrying capacity classes within each 1 km buffer zone, continued till 10 km from coastline shows the increasing trend of carrying capacity when the distance increases. 20% increase can be seen compared to the first buffer zone (Buffer zone at 1km) and the last buffer zone (Buffer zone at 10 km). But 60% of the land is under ―Low‖ to ―No carrying capacity classes‖. It was observed that the ecological sensitivity was more near the coastline and kept reducing when the distance increases for the coastline. In the 1 km buffer zone nearly 80% area were considered as highly sensitive area whereas in the 10 km buffer zone only 60% area were coming under medium to high sensitivity classes. Within 3 km buffer distance from coastline, nearly 65% to 75% area was occupied by medium to high ecological sensitivity classes.

[Keywords: Sensitivity, Weightage and Ranks, Setback Distance, Buffer Zone]

Introduction

Carrying capacity literature contains a number of definitions, which though similar, do differ according to discipline or focus. Perhaps one of the earliest formal definitions of carrying capacity was put forward by James and Ripley (1963)1 who simply defined it ―as the biological and physical limitations of the land to support recreational

In general, the definition of ―Carrying Capacity‖

refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural, social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations. Feebly defined, carrying capacity is the amount of activity or use that can be handled by a system before it begins to deteriorate. Another way to describe carrying capacity is determining how much use a given setting can absorb, before unacceptable impacts occur.

The concept of carrying capacity was initially introduced in biology to define the relationship between the resource base, the assimilative and restorative capacity of the environment and the biotic potential of a species2. In the early 1960's increasing research attention was being directed at the social aspects of capacity3. Stewart (1993)3 have mentioned 5 different variable types of carrying capacity and they are:

1 Ecological Carrying Capacity 2 Physical Carrying Capacity 3 Facility Carrying Capacity 4 Economic Carrying Capacity 5 Social Carrying Capacity

Variables can include the supplies of materials such as food, clothing, water, and shelter, and natural constraints such as climate, ground water, rivers, flooding, fertile soil, and so on. In our studies a new constraint is introduced, the ‗natural morphological landscape‘. This type of carrying capacity is called “Coastal Morphological Landscape (CML) Carrying Capacity” and is studied to understand the capabilities and potentials in order to preserve the natural morphological landscape environment. Hereafter in this document ‗carrying capacity‘ mean ‗coastal morphological landscape (CML) carrying capacity‘

“Morphological landscape‖ is defined as external appearance of continuous land surface extended over many landforms and spatial manifestation of the relation between human and their environment. The landform features constituting of deltas, estuaries, lagoons, sand/sediments, corals, vegetation, salt marshes, sand dunes, beaches, rocky shores, mud flats, built up environments, etc.

Carrying capacity is a function of topography, geology, available water supply, the ability of soils

BABY : LANDSCAPE CARRYING CAPACITY FOR COASTAL AREAS IN KUWAIT

1501

to accept effluent treated to one extent or another, necessary protection for surface water bodies, and accommodation to wildlife needs. conservation of natural resources preservation of areas of unique scientific, historical

and cultural value preservation of heritage tourism and recreation employment opportunities and others

Kuwait coastline is in a continuous state of change due to rapid urbanization in the mainland. Quantifying the rate of change and increase in urbanization along the coastline is the first step towards understanding the causality between development and its impacts on the coastline. Quantifying the carrying capacity across the coastal regions would allow us to build better processes to control development in areas where the carrying capacity is low and encourage development in areas where the carrying capacity is high.

The research aims at focusing on sustainability in coastal areas while defining a methodology for constructing CML carrying capacity indicators as part of the broader framework of sustainable development indicators and ICZM indicators. The objectives are:

o Define the Carrying Capacity in terms of morphological units

o To assess the land for any development along the Kuwait coast by considering various thematic layers.

o To define sensitivity and setback distances for new development.

Material and Methods

Study Area The State of Kuwait which is located in the

Middle East, and occupies an area approximately 17,800 km2, extending between 28o 30' N and 30o 05' N of latitudes and 46o3' E and 48o35' E of longitudes. Kuwait (Fig. 1) is surrounded by Arabian Gulf (east), Iraq (north and west) and Saudi Arabia (south and west). The main shoreline of the coast of Kuwait is about 325 kilometers long and the total shoreline including all the nine islands is about 500 kilometers in length4.

This study focuses on the concept of physical and ecological carrying capacity. The methodology adopted here uses different morpho-ecological features (parameters) from El-Baz and Al-Sarawi (2000)5, and Al-Yamani et al. (2004)6 which are vital in the calculation of carrying capacity. The variables

Fig. 1—Coastal Area of Kuwait

INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 43 NO. 8 AUGUST 2014

1502

were chosen carefully and mapped using GIS techniques to analyze the sustainability of the coastal morphological landscape eco system.

Not all the factors have the same degree of influence on carrying capacity calculation, but different levels of effect exist among them. Some of them may significantly contribute in carrying capacity calculation, but some others may act to a limited level. In the study, an attempt has been made to find out the degree of influence of each factor towards carrying capacity calculation using the superior capabilities of GIS environment. The Flow chart (Fig. 2) below details the methodology adopted in this study. Base map Creation

Base map contains permanent features which will not change much over the period of time. In this study, Kuwait toposheet was used to derive the base features such as Kuwait administrative boundary, Kuwait base coastline, Road network etc.

Weightage determination

Based on expert advice and questionnaire survey, influence of geological morphological classes to the ecosystem‘s carrying capacity was defined. A score of 3 was assigned to the class which supports habitat or ecology that is high or is highly vulnerable from human interference. The scores and relative importance are explained below. 1 0 = No Value = CML that does not support

habitat or ecology or is barren and built-up or

already modified completely or development would not cause severe damage.

2 1 = Low Value = CML that can support habitat or ecology least or is less vulnerable from human interference.

3 3 = Highest value = CML that can support habitat or ecology highly or is highly vulnerable from human interference.

Data Used

For the preparation of carrying capacity map the following thematic maps were collected from different agencies and rectified using toposheet. The rectified maps were manually digitized to create a spatial database for: 1 Geology5 2 Geomorphology5 3 Geomorphology sheet5 4 LULC (Obtained from KISR and KM) 5 Soil (Obtained from KISR and PAAF) 6 Vegetation5 7 Marine Ecology6 8 Marine Geomorphology6

Each layer feature was then assigned a Weightage to be used in the calculation of carrying capacity.

Maps in Vector Format

Maps were prepared on 1:50,000 scale, was projected to UTM projection (UTM Zone 38R WGS 84), the same co-ordinate system as that of toposheet (source: Kuwait Municipality), geo-referenced and digitized to prepare the maps in vector format with an

Fig. 2—Methodology Flow Chart


1503

error maintained at RMS 0.10625. These were repeated for 8 thematic maps to produce 8 separate layers of vectorized map with coastline and boundaries adjusted from topographic map. Below given Maps (Figs. 3 to 10) shows the 8 buffer layers for the onshore (6) and offshore (2) features with percentage area and Weightage allotted (Tables 1 to 8). Null categories signify that there is no information available for the area.

Sensitivity Map Preparation

Environmental sensitivity and carrying capacity for development are inversely related. Environmental sensitivity parameters have become very important owing to the growing pace of development. Planning initiatives are being used to protect areas for conservation of local ecology and bio-diversity. These protected areas might be suitable for development but have been set aside for protection. The carrying capacity of these sensitive areas is discounted to determine net carrying capacity.

Ecological sensitivity is a parameter that is used to estimate the sustainability of development by comparing human‘s demand on ecosystem (i.e., ecological footprint) with the bio-capacity (i.e., natural capital) that can be regenerated by productive land7-10. A detailed Landcover map

(1:50000) of the study area was prepared for the preparation of ecological sensitivity map. According to the current literature a sensitivity table (Table 9) was prepared and the same was attributed to the Landcover map.

A qualitative map was generated based on the sensitivity values. The entire Land Cover map was then reclassified into 6 different classes such as not sensitive, Very Low, low, Medium, High, and Very High. Figure 11 shows the reclassified map of sensitivity. Grid Size Selection

In GIS, the concept of GRID cell is mostly used in the formulation of Mathematical Model or in the analysis of highly spatially varying phenomena at local level. A grid means ideal properties –orthogonal matrix, fixed resolution33. The choice of grid resolution was related with the cartographic and statistical concepts: scale, computer processing power, positional accuracy, and size of delineations, inspection density, spatial autocorrelation structure and complexity of terrain.

Due to the inaccuracies in the base data and shift between the multiple layers used in this analysis, 500 meter grids (Fig. 12) were chosen to summarize the geospatial layers which influence the carrying capacity of the coastal zone. Planning decisions are

Fig. 3—Geology Map

Fig. 4—Geomorphology Map


1504

Fig. 7—LULC Map

Fig. 8—Vegetation Map

Fig. 5—Geomorphology Sheet Map

Fig. 6—Soil Map


1505

also undertaken at a large scale. Hence the grid size was chosen to ensure minimal data loss while providing sufficient detail to enable determination of setback distance. Carrying Capacity Calculation

In order to maintain the sustainability among the coastal ecosystem, it is necessary to find out the carrying capacity of the land. In this study Carrying Capacity of the land was analyzed with the consideration of different morpho-ecological parameters. By calculating the carrying capacity, one can evaluate the current state of the environment and can limit the future development which in turn benefits both the environment and human development.

Multi Criterion Weighted overlay analysis technique was employed in this study to calculate the carrying

Fig. 9—Marine Ecology Map

Fig. 10—Marine Geomorphology Map

Table 1—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each Geology Class

Geology Types % of Area Weightage Fars Formation 6.49 1 Lower Member of Dibdibah Formation

8.09 1

Middle Eocene 1.79 1 Not Classified (Bubiyon) 14.72 3 Undifferentiated Fars and Ghar Formations

46.61 1

Upper Member of Dibdibah Formation

22.30 1

Table 2—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each Geomorphology Class

Geomorphology Types % of Area Weightage Active sand sheet 14.56 1 Coastal plain deposits 5.00 2 Coastal sabkha 8.95 2 Coastal sand dunes 4.39 2 Gravel plain 6.50 1 Gravel ridges 5.35 1 Inland sabhka 1.79 2 Null 0.51 3 Outcrops of old rocks 3.41 1 Rugged sand sheet 4.24 0 Sabkha with gypsum rich sand 7.69 2 Sabkha with salt patches 6.59 1 Sand and gravel quarries 3.93 1 Sand Dunes 23.90 1 Tidal flat 3.19 2


1506

capacity. The following general steps are adopted when considering overlay analysis. Identification of input Layers. Reclassify the values in the input Layers into a

common evaluation scale of preference or some similarly unifying scale.

Multiply the class values of each input Layers by the Layer‘s weight of importance.

Summing the resulting values together to produce the final output.

Identification of Input Layers

In this stage, the layers which are needed to get the desired output are identified. The layers should be chosen based on the context of the study, importance of the layer to the current study and the availability of the data. In this study, the following layers are considered for the evaluation of carrying capacity. 1 Geology 2 Geomorphology 3 Geomorphology sheet 4 LULC 5 Soil

6 Vegetation 7 Marine Ecology 8 Marine Geomorphology Reclassification of Layers into a Common Scale

Since the input criteria layers will be in different numbering systems with different ranges, to combine them in a single analysis, each class for each criterion must be reclassified into a common preference scale such as 1 to 5, with 5 being the most favorable. An assigned preference on the common scale implies the phenomenon's preference for the criterion. The preference values are on a relative scale. That is, a preference of 4 is twice as preferred as a preference of 2.

The preference values not only should be assigned relative to each other within the layer but should have the same significance between the layers. For example, if a location for one criterion is assigned a preference of 5, it will have the same influence on the phenomenon as a 5 in a second criterion. In this study, weightage values are assigned to each class based on the expert advice in the scale of 0 to 5 where 5 represents the higher ecological importance and 0 represents the lower ecological importance. Table 3—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each

Geomorphology Sheet Class

Geomorphology Sheet Types % of Area Weightage

Active Sand Sheets 4.21 0 Barchan Sand Dunes 4.86 1 Barchanoid Ridges 10.38 1 Coastal Plain Deposits 29.20 3 Deflated Rugges Sand Sheets 0.54 0 Desert Floor Deposits Siliciclastic Granule Lag

6.61 0

Fall Dunes 12.44 1 Gravel Lag 11.48 0 Playa Deposits 0.37 1 Smooth Sand Sheets 19.49 1 Urban Area 0.42 0

Table 4—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each Soil Class

Soil Types % of Area Weightage Aqaisalids 20.97 1 Calcigysids 11.03 1 Haplocalcids 11.13 1 Miscellaneous units 10.78 0 Petrocalcids 2.22 1 Petrogysids 3.12 1 Torripsammeats 40.74 3

Table 5—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each LULC Class

LULC Types % of Area Weightage

Agricultural area 2.49 2 Built up area 0.25 0 Communication facility 0.75 0 Encampment 0.12 1 Hills & Low Escarpments 4.43 1 Intensive Animal farm 0.38 0 Kuwait Airport 0.53 0 Oil Field 12.29 0 Power station 9.42 0 Quarry / Borrow pits and tailings 0.32 0 Racetrack 4.19 0 Range Land 31.99 1 Refuse Disposal Area 1.34 0 Sabkha 4.96 2 Special Uses 1.46 1 Tidal Flat 5.42 3 Wadi AL Batin 4.44 2 Water resource (fresh/brackish water field)

1.78 1

Wet Land 12.95 2 Wooded Parkland 0.49 0


1507

Weightage and Ranks In judging the zones of morphological importance,

two factors play an important role, one is the area factor and the other one is the Weightage score factor allotted, which grades the morphological features. Morphological importance was analyzed by dividing the study area into 500×500 meter square.

Area factor is calculated for each weightage class. For example area factor for the weightage class 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was individually computed for each grid. Sample table with area factors is shown in Table 10.

From the above calculation the percentage of area occupied by each weightage value against the total

area is calculated. Area factor was used in the carrying capacity calculation.

Ranks are assigned for area factors in ascending order (Table 11). AF0 holds the rank of 1 while AF4 holds the rank of 4.

The carrying capacity of each grid is calculated as follows, CC = (Total Area*AF0*1)/100 + (Total Area*AF1*0.75) / 100 + (Total Area*AF2*0.5)/100 + (Total Area*AF3*0.25) /100 + (Total Area*AF4*0)/100

Table 9—Environmental Sensitivity Values for different Land Use Classes

Sl. No Land Use Classes Sensitivity 1 Agricultural area 50 2 Built up area, Communication facility,

Oil Field, Power station, Racetrack, Refuse Disposal Area, Kuwait airport

1

3 Encampment, Hills & Low Escarpments 0 4 Intensive Animal farm 30 5 Quarry / Borrow pits and tailings 10 6 Range Land, Wadi AL Batin 70 7 Sabkha 85 8 Special Uses, Water resource

(fresh/brackish water field), Wet Land, Wooded Parkland

100

9 Tidal Flat 90

Fig. 11—Sensitivity Map

Table 6—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each Vegetation Class

Vegetation Types % of Area Weightage Cyperus Conglomeratus 19.49 2 Haloxylon Salicornicum 20.16 1 Pancium Turgidum 5.75 3 Residential areas 3.60 0 Rhanlerium Epapposum 17.25 2 Zygophyllum qatarense(and other halophiles)

33.74 3

Table 7—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each Marine Ecology Class

Marine Ecology Types % of Area Weightage Echinoidal Marl 9.01 1 Foraminiferal Calcarenitic Marl 9.68 2 Foraminiferal Echinoidal Calcarenitic Marl

12.87 2

Foraminiferal Echinoidal Marl 8.88 1 Foraminiferal Marl 8.08 3 Malluscan Calcarenite 4.48 2 Molluscan Calcarenitic Marl 22.91 1 Molluscan Marl 5.78 1 Molluscan Marly Calcarenite 4.12 2 Null 14.19 3

Table 8—Weightage and Percentage of Area covered by each Marine Geomorphology Class

Marine Geomorphology Types % of Area Weightage Mud 30.07 2 Muddy sand 1.44 1 Null 13.44 3 Sand 4.46 1 Sandy mud 32.53 1 Sandy silt 13.13 1 Silt 2.30 1 Silty sand 2.66 1


1508

Carrying capacity layer (Fig. 13) was classified in carrying capacity groups by equally dividing the range of carrying capacity values into six classes.

Net Carrying Capacity Map

Net carrying capacity map (Fig. 14) was derived from carrying capacity map after adjusting their values for environmental sensitivity. Sensitivity and carrying capacity are opposite in nature. High sensitivity means low carrying capacity and Low sensitivity means high carrying capacity. The initial carrying capacity map is adjusted to sensitivity of the area and accordingly net carrying capacity map was prepared.

Results and Discussion

Carrying capacity map was prepared by considering various thematic layers and their extent of coverage within the study area. Thematic layers were prepared from various sources and spatial database was created for the analysis. Ranks and weightages were assigned to each thematic class based on the expert feedback and survey. Ranks were assigned to each classes of the layer whereas weightages were assigned based on the extent of the area occupied by each class within the reference grid. The study area was divided by 500 m2 and carrying capacity was calculated for each 500 m2 Sensitivity map was prepared based on the ecological sensitivity of the land cover classes and later it was used to adjust the carrying capacity. Net carrying capacity map was prepared by considering all the thematic layers and sensitivity of the landcover

Fig. 12—AOI with 500m Grid

Table 10—Computation of Area factor for each analysis grid

Grid No. AF0 AF1 AF2 AF3 AF4 1 16.67 33.76 33.33 16.24 0.00 2 16.67 49.68 33.33 0.32 0.00 3 16.67 50.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 4 16.67 50.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 5 16.67 50.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 6 33.33 50.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 7 31.11 52.22 16.67 0.00 0.00 8 21.25 36.30 26.76 15.68 0.00 9 18.33 42.11 33.33 6.22 0.00

Table 11—Weightage associated with each class of Area factor

Class Rank Weightage AF0 1 1 AF1 2 0.75 AF2 3 0.5 AF3 4 0.25 AF4 5 0.90

Fig. 13—Carrying Capacity Map


1509

classes. The carrying capacity map can be used for high level planning such as urban development, environmental planning etc. Analysis was completed for every 1km distance from the coastline up to 10 km zone from the coastline.

Buffer Zone Map

Figure 15 shows different buffer zones from the coastline. The buffer zones were used to further analyze the variation of carrying capacity at 1 km intervals from the coastline.

Classification of Net Carrying Capacity in Each Buffer

Zone

Figure 16 illustrates the percentage of area covered by each carrying capacity classes with in each 1 km buffer zone. The Graph shows the increasing trend of carrying capacity when the distance increases. 20% increase can be seen compared to the first buffer zone (Buffer zone at 1 km) and the last buffer zone (Buffer zone at 10 km). But 60% of the land is under ―Low‖ to ―No carrying capacity classes‖.

Classification of Sensitivity in Each Buffer Zone

Figure 17 illustrates the percentage of area covered by sensitivity classes within each buffer zone. It was observed that the ecological sensitivity was more near

the coastline and keep reducing when the distance increase i.e. going further away for the coastline. In the 1km buffer zone nearly 80% area were considered as highly sensitive area whereas in the 10 km buffer zone only 60% area were under medium to high sensitivity classes. Within 3 km buffer distance from coastline, nearly 65% to 75% areas were occupied by medium to high ecological sensitivity classes. The sensitivity index map helps the planners to plan the eco friendly environment along the coastline.

Classification of Carrying Capacity Based on

Morphology of the Coastline within 1 km Buffer

Zone

Coastline was segmented based on the Marine geomorphology characteristics of the coast. The

Fig. 14—Net Carrying Capacity Map

Fig. 15—Multiple Buffer Zone Map

Fig. 16—Classification of Net Carrying Capactiy in each buffer zone


1510

carrying capacity of each coastal segment -was analysed within 1 km buffer zone. It was observed that the silty sand coastline has showed high carrying capacity compared to the other segments. Figure 18 illustrates, nearly 90% areas were classified under medium to Very high carrying capacity classes. Nearly 90% areas near Sandy silt segment were classified under Low to No carrying capacity classes. Mud and silt coastline segments have nearly 70% areas under Low to No carrying capacity classes. Sand and Sandy mud coastline segments have 50% to 55% areas under Medium to very high carrying capacity classes.

Classification of Carrying Capacity in the 2nd

Buffer Zone Based on Morphology of the Coastline

The next analysis focussed on the 2nd buffer zone that‘s between 1 and 2 km from the coastline. As observed from Figure 19 in the first buffer zone, inland areas with Silty Sand coastline segment had 100% of the area covered under High and very high carrying capacity classes and Sandy silt coastline segment had 100% area under very low and No carrying capacity classes. Other segments like Mud,

Sand Sandy mud, Silt have between 60% to 70% under very low and no carrying capacity classes.

Net Carrying Capacity within Buffer Zones and

Setback

Figure 20 shows the classified coastline based on marine geomorphology and from Al-Sarawi et al. (1985 & 1998)11-12

with the background of net carrying capacity and the different buffer zones.

Setback distance is defined based on the availability of areas with high carrying capacity for development. The process developed in this study would be suitable

Fig. 17—Classification of Sensitivity in each buffer zone

Fig. 18—Carrying Capacity within One km Onshore Buffer zone

Fig. 19—Carrying Capacity between 1st and 2nd km Buffer zones

Fig. 20—Net Carrying Capacity within buffer zones


1511

to determine availability of suitable areas along a coastline by using the carrying capacity map along with the coastline geomorphology as guidelines for supporting development. Net carrying capacity in the buffer zone gives information for deciding the set-back distance for any development to take place involving change in morphological landscape.

Evolutionary Aspect of Carrying Capacity It is difficult to quantify the carrying capacity for

ecosystem or ecosphere as it cannot be predicted from

the knowledge of the elements of the system13-15. According to Williams and Lemckert (2007)15 the main limitation of the carrying capacity concept is its application to determine use limits. The relationship between resource use levels, management and the impacts of use is neither simple nor uniform. However, of all, the study of carrying capacity depends on the goals that are specified for the development. Here in this study where the goal was to protect the available vulnerable and depleting natural CML from interaction with anthropogenic land use. The understandings of the studies have a great significance in preserving coastal ecosystem through sustained development.

Al-Sarawi et al. (1985)11 have classified coastline into 11 zones (Figure 21). These zones were used for the comparing the changes in coastal regions. It was noticed Zones 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 have undergone significant alteration of coastal morphological landscape from the year 1985 and 1998. Coast of Zone 5 and 6 has undergone great changes which includes the development of waterfront project mainly in zone 6. It was also learnt that from 2004 onward significant alteration of coastal morphological landscape have taken place in zones 2 & 1 particularly at Al-Khiran and zones 9 & 10 towards Subiya and Bubiyan from 2010. It was noted that major changes in the zone 3, 4, 5 & 6 was due to more built-up activities and increase in population within the same land use area (i.e. LU to LU).

All these activities affect the carrying capacity of landscape and undermine the ability to handle impacts directly and/or indirectly. The carrying capacity is on decreasing trend along the coastal areas particularly more in the areas of interference for those zones mentioned in above paragraph. For better explanation anthropogenic impacts on coast can be translated to carrying capacity as shown in Figure 22. This spectrum represents the impact and carrying capacity relationship and corresponding negative and positive scaling.

Fig. 21—Coastal Zones

Fig. 22—Spectrum for impacts translated to carrying capacity


1512

Conclusion

In this study the carrying capacity provides a basis for examining important interactions between concerns of natural resource conditions and perceived quality of impacted resources, and between the quantity of opportunities supplied and the quality of the experience derived from them. Evaluation of carrying capacity linked to coastal evolution supports scientific and management decisions and actions, formulate strategies for effective legislations and laws. It puts pressure on intensive studies to undergo transparent study on location alternatives, options and setback from coastline for the activities and land use related to development.

The study of sensitivity, carrying capacity and setback and it‘s relationship would sustain in implementing the following principles of the Declaration on Environment and Development (points 3 and 4) which were adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 199216 The right to development must be fulfilled so as

to meet equitably developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

Acknowledgement

Author is grateful and indebted to Mr. Sitansu B Pattnaik who have helped me with his excellent technical and professional guidance. My sincere thanks go to Mr. Saravanan Karuppasamy for his highly technical support My thankful appreciation to Ms. Ancy Alex from GEO Environmental Services, Kuwait for helping me in calculation, reviewing and cross-verifying the results.

References 1 James, G.A. & Ripley, T.H., Overuse. A Threat to Our

Developed Recreational Areas. American Recreation Journal, 4(3), (1963), 5.

2 Lein, J.K., Applying Expert Systems Technology to Carrying Capacity Assessment: A Demonstration Prototype. Journal of Environmental Management, 37, (1993), 63-84.

3 Stewart, C., Recreational and Developmental Carrying Capacities of Coastal Environments - A Review of Relevant Literature and Research. Consulting Report prepared for Atria Engineering Hydraulics Inc., (1993), pp. 67.

4 Baby, S., Techniques, Tools and Methods to Determine Coastal Morphologic Evolution & Management for ‗Coasts in Crisis‘ in ‗The State of Kuwait‘. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1(1), (2010), 30-38.

5 El-Baz, F. & Al-Sarawi, M.A., Atlas for the State of Kuwait from Satellite Images. Kuwait Foundation for Advancement of Sciences (KFAS), (2000), pp. 145.

6 Al-Yamani, F.Y., Bishop, J., Ramadhan, E., Al-Husaini, M. & Al-Ghadban, A.N., Oceanographic Atlas of Kuwait‘s Water, KISR, (2004), pp. 203.

7 Rees, W.E., "Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out". Environment and Urbanisation 4 (2), (1992), 121-130.

8 Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. ISBN 0-86571-312-X, (1997).

9 Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Erb, K., Haberl, H. & Schulz, N. B. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961-1999: Comparing the conventional approach to an ―actual land demand‖ approach. Land Use Policy, 21(3), (2004), 261-269.

10 Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M. & Deumling, D., Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity accounts. Land Use Policy, 21, (2004), 231-246

11 Al-Sarawi, M.A., Gundlach, E.R. & Baca, B.J. An Atlas of Shoreline Types and Resources. Kuwait Foundation for Advancement of Science, Kuwait, (1985), pp. 60.

12 Al-Sarawi, M.A., Gundlach, E.R. & Baca, B.J. Coastal Geomorphology and Resources in terms of Sensitivity to Oil Spill. J. Univ. Kuwait (Sci), 15, (1998), 141-184.

13 Mitchell, J.C. Urbanization in newly developed Countries. Prentice Hall of India, 1995.

14 Sanal, R.P. & Nanadamohan, V., A discrete mathematical modeling of carrying capacity of ecotourism – a study on backwater tourism of Kerala. Proceedings of the Eleventh Kerala Science Congress, Kasargod, (1999), 318-321.

15 Williams, P. & Lemckert, C., Beach Carrying Capacity: Has it been exceeded on the Gold Coast? Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, (2007), 21- 24.

16 UNEP, Guidelines for carrying capacity assessment for tourism in Mediterranean coastal areas. Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre, SPLIT, (1997), pp. 51.

assessing morphological landscape carrying …nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/34490/1/ijms...

Documents