Option 3 for Ravensby, a village on the eroding Holderness coast, is managed retreat. No new defences would be built and the cliff would continue to retreat by about 1.8 m a year. The owners of the 42 homes at risk within 50 years would receive up to £60 000 each and could build new homes on council land west of the village; Coast Road would be moved more than 1 km inland; and the holiday park would receive a £1 million grant to move its caravans onto farmland further inland. The total cost would be about £7 million. Figure 1 shows the plans.
To what extent would Option 3 be a sustainable way of managing the coast at Ravensby?
Model answer
A sustainable solution meets the needs of people today without harming the ability of future generations to meet theirs, balancing social, economic and environmental needs.
Environmentally, Option 3 is very sustainable. It works with natural processes instead of against them. No concrete, imported rock or dredged sand is needed, and the eroding boulder clay cliffs would continue to supply sediment that longshore drift carries south to build beaches in other villages and Spurn Head nature reserve. Unlike groynes or a sea wall, it would not starve the coast further south of sediment.
Economically, it is also sustainable. At about £7 million it costs less than half as much as Options 1 and 2, and it has no maintenance costs. As sea level rises, hard defences would have to be raised or rebuilt, but managed retreat does not need upgrading, so it does not leave a bill for future generations. Figure 1 shows that the new holiday park site and the new homes would be on farmland west of the village, well away from the land that will be lost by 2074, so the park's 35 jobs and visitor spending could continue and the new homes would be safe for a long time. The new Coast Road would keep the village connected.
However, it is much less sustainable socially. The owners of 42 homes would receive at most £60 000, less than a third of what a home is worth, so many would lose most of their savings and suffer great stress, particularly elderly residents. Some families might leave, weakening the community, and in the long term St Peter's Church, the shop and the pub would be lost. Farmers would lose land to erosion without compensation and would also lose fields to the new road, homes and holiday park. At Happisburgh in Norfolk, where a similar approach was used, homes were bought and demolished and the caravan park was moved inland, but residents still lost their homes and their community changed.
Overall, Option 3 is sustainable to a large extent because it is the best option for the environment and the cheapest in the long term. However, it is only partly sustainable socially, so it would be more sustainable if the compensation were closer to the real value of people's homes.
Explanation
Level 3 answers define sustainability, assess all three strands (social, economic, environmental) and future generations, use evidence from the map and information (costs, compensation, the safe new sites), and reach a judgement on the extent rather than simply saying 'it is sustainable'. Recognising that an option can be environmentally sustainable but socially unfair shows the balance examiners look for.
