A Comparative Study of Coastal Management in Sri Lanka

7/27/2019 A Comparative Study of Coastal Management in Sri Lanka

1/58

A Comparative Study ofCoastalManagement Between Mount

Lavinia and Galle Face

International Baccalaureate Geography Standard Level

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

Candidate Name Rukmal Weerawarana

Candidate Session Number 001426-005

Candidate Code dwd913

School Name The British School in Colombo

Examination Session MAY 2013

Pages 57

Word Count 2376


2/58

Rukmal Weerawarana IBDP

IB Geography SL 001426-005|dwd913 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Geography Internal Assessment supervisor,Ms. Juri Burman for her undying support and encouragement to write this report. I would not have

been able to complete this dissertation without her guidance. Lastly, I would also like to sincerely

thank my parents for allowing me to conduct this research, and for keeping up with my hectic

schedule. I would not have been able to complete this essay without them.


3/58



Table of ContentsIntroduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

Background Information .................................................................................................................................. 4

Aim ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Study Areas ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Location A Galle Face Green, Colombo 3 ...................................................................................................... 6

Location B Mount Lavinia Beach, Mount Lavinia ..................................................................................... 11

Methods of Data Collection ............................................................................................. 15

Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................................ 15

Random Sampling .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Systematic Sampling ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Questionnaires ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Maps ............................................................................................................................................................... 15

Photographs .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Application of Data Collection Methods to Hypotheses ........................................................................... 15

Hypothesis 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 15Hypothesis 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Data Processing ................................................................................................................ 16

Qualitative Data Processing ........................................................................................................................... 16

Galle Face ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Mount Lavinia ................................................................................................................................................ 25

Litter Survey Processing ................................................................................................................................. 30

Galle Face ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

Mount Lavinia ................................................................................................................................................ 30

Comparison ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

Potential Hydrogen (pH) Processing ............................................................................................................ 32

Water Transmittance Processing ................................................................................................................... 33

Galle Face ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

Mount Lavinia ................................................................................................................................................ 33

Comparison ..................................................................................................................................................... 34

Safety Survey Processing ................................................................................................................................ 35

Galle Face ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

Mount Lavinia ................................................................................................................................................ 35Comparison ..................................................................................................................................................... 36


4/58



Beach Safety Survey Processing .................................................................................................................... 37

Galle Face ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

Mount Lavinia ................................................................................................................................................ 37

Comparison ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 38

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 41

Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 42

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix A: Raw Data and Readings ............................................................................ 45

Galle Face .......................................................................................................................................................... 45

Qualitative Observations ............................................................................................................................... 45

Litter Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 46Potential Hydrogen (pH) ................................................................................................................................ 46

Water Transmittance ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Safety Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 48

Beach Safety Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 48

Mount Lavinia .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Qualitative Observations ............................................................................................................................... 49

Litter Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 50

Potential Hydrogen (pH) ................................................................................................................................ 50

Water Transmittance ...................................................................................................................................... 50

Safety Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 51

Beach Safety Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix B: Averages for Litter Survey Processing ....................................................... 52

Galle Face .......................................................................................................................................................... 52

Mount Lavinia .................................................................................................................................................. 52

Appendix C: Averages for Potential Hydrogen (pH) Processing ................................. 53

Galle Face .......................................................................................................................................................... 53

Mount Lavinia .................................................................................................................................................. 53

Appendix D: Averages for Water Transmittance Processing ........................................ 55

Galle Face .......................................................................................................................................................... 55

Mount Lavinia .................................................................................................................................................. 55

Appendix E: Calculation of Spearmans Rank correlation coefficient for pH ............ 57


5/58



Introduction

Background InformationSri Lanka is located in the Indian Ocean, at the latitude of 7N and the longitude of 81E.1

The two study areas are located within and in the vicinity of the economic capital of the country,

Colombo. Colombo has a population of 681,000 (2009).

Figure 1 Map of Colombo

1 (Central Intelligence Agency)


6/58



AimSri Lanka has witnessed a sharp spike in tourism rates after the end of a long civil war2,

resulting in an increase of tourists numbers in Colombo. Places that used to be of local interest have

now become international tourist destinations. Thus, it was decided to investigate and evaluate the

effectiveness of the protective and managerial measures undertaken by the relevant authorities inprotecting these prime locations.

The topic is related to the core topic of patterns in environmental quality and sustainability

and the option topic of oceans and their coastal margins as well as leisure, sport and tourism.

The following hypothesizes were formulated to carry out the investigation:

Hypotheses

1. The coastline is preserved at both sites by building and maintainingdefense mechanisms, which allows people to access the beaches.

2. Human impact has degraded the environmental quality of the beaches.3. Both beaches will have some form of security, but Mount Lavinia will be a

safer place to visit at night.

These hypotheses would help analyze the need for integrated planning in the tourism

sector, which involves developing tourism-related infrastructure.

2 (Department of Government Information)


7/58



Study AreasLocation A Galle Face Green, Colombo 3

Galle Face Green is located in the center of Colombo, at the intersection of the main road to

Galle, and the main road to the center of the city (Fort). For this investigation, it was divided into 3

separate segments, namely Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3.

Englishman Sir Henry Ward built it in 1859; just 3 years after construction began in 1856

(Figure 2). It was also nearly acquired by a private company in 2004, but the Supreme Court of Sri

Lanka overruled the decision in 2005.3

To analyze the layout of Galle Face Green, land usage maps were drawn for each of the

individual sites. In addition to this, road maps were also considered to provide valuable insight into

the nature of the study area.

Figure 2 Picture of plaque erected when Galle Face was opened in 1859

3 (Silva)


8/58



Figure 3 Road map of Location A (Galle Face Green)4

4 (Google Inc.)


9/58



Figure 4 Land usage map for Site 1 of Location A (Galle Face Green)


10/58





11/58





12/58



Location B Mount Lavinia Beach, Mount Lavinia

The Mount Lavinia Beach is located in the town of Mount Lavinia, one of the immediate

suburbs of Colombo. At 12km from Fort,5 it is a popular tourist destination housing some of the

nations most popular hotels such as the Mount Lavinia Hotel.6

The Mount Lavinia Beach gained popularity with the launch of the Mount Lavinia Beach

hotel over 200 years ago.7 In addition to this, the location also has substantial sporting significance,

with the Sri Lanka Annual Sea swim being held at the beach for 75 years.8

Land usage maps were drawn for the Mount Lavinia Beach to better analyze the study area.

Figure 7 Mount Lavinia Beach Hotel

5 (Google)6

(Mount Lavinia Hotel)7 (Mount Lavinia Hotel)8 (Daily Mirror Online)


13/58



Figure 8 Road map of Location B (Mount Lavinia Beach)9

9 (Google Inc.)


14/58



Figure 9 Land usage map for Site 1 of Location B (Mount Lavinia Beach)


15/58



Figure 10 Land usage map for Site 2 of Location B (Mount Lavinia Beach)

Word Count - 456


16/58



Methods of Data Collection

Data Collection MethodsRandom Sampling

This method of data collection was used during peak hours, as both locations are chaotic,

which makes it impossible to sample data symmetrically.

Systematic Sampling

Data was collected systematically for pH and water transmittance tests. As these tests do not

require human interaction, systematic sampling of water and litter was possible during peak hours.

Questionnaires

This method was used to collect information from individual opinions of the visitors.

Random samples were selected and interviews were carried out using closed questionnaires.

Maps

To study the noise levels and air quality road maps were used. They provided information

on number of main roads in the study areas.

Photographs

The conclusions of the study are derived based on qualitative data so photographs prove to

be valuable visual evidence for supporting the observations.

Application of Data Collection Methods to HypothesesHypothesis 1

The defense mechanisms present at each location were visually observed and photographed.

The effectiveness of these mechanisms was then measured by comparing the current state of the

beach to previous records of the beach.

Hypothesis 2

Testing both the condition of the water and the beaches proved this hypothesis. The water

was tested for transmittance and potential hydrogen (pH). Water transmittance was used as a

measure of the amount of pollution in the water at the study areas. To do this, a total of 10 water

samples were collected per site, with a 10m interval. To measure the cleanliness of the beaches,number of pieces of immediately visible litter at each of the sites was counted. The liter was then

divided into categories: paper, plastic, glass and other.

Hypothesis 3

Questionnaires were used to collect information. To do this, the random data sampling

method was used. The total number of lifeguards and security officers at the locations were counted

to observe the security levels.

Word Count - 284


17/58



Data Processing

Qualitative Data ProcessingGalle Face

Figure 11 Rock slab formed due to erosion in site 1

Rock slab caused by

erosion from the waves

Groin to protect the

beach from further

sediment transfer,which leads to erosion


18/58



Figure 12 Graffiti on pier in site 1

Graffiti drawn using

local spray paint

Pier in site 1


19/58



Figure 13 Observed waste materials in site 1

Plastic bottles

found on the

beach

Other types of

litter seen

include shoes

and caps

Remains of rock

armor examples

of active wave

erosion


20/58



Figure 14 Picture of drain containing waster in site 2

Trash is made up of

empty food packs,

plastic packages and

cans


21/58



Figure 15 Quality of beach in site 2

Trash dumped by

waves form patterns

reflecting bad

quality of water.

Alcohol

BottlesThe large

amounts of trash

on the beach

attracts crows

and other

animals


22/58



Figure 16 Drain brining polluted water from Beira Lake in the sea in site 3.

Groins are used to

protect the beach

from wave erosion

Polluted green color of

the Beira Lake water

shows low levels of

oxygen

The green color shows

the presence of algae

resulting from chemicals

in the water


23/58



Figure 17 Gabions in site 2

Gabion submerged

due to high levels

of sediment

transfer

Break in the wire

mesh of the gabion

has caused trash to

spill out


24/58



Figure 18 Picture of trashcans located in site 2

Low maintenance have caused

trashcans such as this one to

become damaged

Trash is sorted for

recycling


25/58



Figure 19 Historic war cannons on the sea wall at Galle Face Green10

10 (Kirill)


26/58



Mount Lavinia

Figure 20 Mount Lavinia Hotel

Hedges and a sea

wall protect the

hotel and the beach

from wave erosion

Direct access to the

beach is available


27/58



Figure 21 Picture of wide beach in site 1

Lifeguards from the

hotel put up flags that

warn the public about

the tides


28/58



Figure 22 Picture of litter seen at site 1

Large pieces of litter are

transferred to this section

of the beach due to long

shore driftCompared to Galle

Face, relatively low

amounts of litter is

seen


29/58



Figure 23 Picture of wall of Mount Lavinia Hotel facing the sea

During high tide, water

reaches the wall of the hotelTrash deposits here

due to long shore drift

during high tide


30/58



Figure 24 Picture of Site 2, taken from the Mount Lavinia Hotel

In this section, the beach

is much smaller than

site 1Rock armor protects

the railway tracks

from high tide water

Rocks in the water make

this area unusable for

swimming


31/58



Litter Survey ProcessingGalle Face

Graph 1 Galle Face Litter Survey distribution

Mount Lavinia

Graph 2 Mount Lavinia Litter Survey distribution

Plastic

Glass

Paper

Other

Plastic

Glass

Paper

Other


32/58



Comparison

Graph 3 Comparison of the number of pieces of litter per site

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Galle Face Mount Lavinia


33/58



Potential Hydrogen (pH) ProcessingDue to the fact that the ocean is a large, highly diffusive body of water, comparing readings

taken at the different sites at the two locations would not yield any insight into the problem at

hand. Thus, the Spearmans Rank correlation coefficient (!) will be used to investigate the presence

of a relationship between the potential hydrogen (pH) levels of Location A and Location B.

However, as the Spearmans rank only allows two sets of data to be compared, each of the

incremental readings for the three sites at location A and the two sites at location B were averaged

to obtain two sets of data for the two locations. This method was considered viable as very little

variation was observed in the pH values when the two sites are considered independently.

The calculation of the Spearmans Rank correlation coefficient can be seen in Appendix E.

Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient:

= .


34/58



Water Transmittance ProcessingGalle Face

Graph 4 Per-site Galle Face Water Transmittance distribution

Mount Lavinia

Graph 5 Per-site Mount Lavinia Water Transmittance distribution

94.50%

95.00%

95.50%

96.00%

96.50%

97.00%

97.50%

Site 1 Site 2 Sie 3

100.11%

100.11%

100.12%

100.12%

100.13%

100.13%

100.14%

100.14%

Site 1 Site 2


35/58



Comparison

Graph 6 Comparison of Location A and Location B in terms of Water Transmittance

92.00%

93.00%

94.00%

95.00%

96.00%

97.00%

98.00%

99.00%

100.00%

101.00%



36/58



Safety Survey ProcessingGalle Face

Graph 7 Processed data from the Galle Face Safety Survey

Mount Lavinia

Graph 8 Processed data from the Mount Lavinia Safety Survey

Yes

No

Yes

No


37/58



Comparison

Graph 9 Comparison of Safety Survey data from Location A and Location B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Yes

No


38/58



Beach Safety Survey ProcessingGalle Face

Graph 10 Processed data from beach safety survey in Galle Face

Mount Lavinia

Graph 11 Processed beach safety survey in Mount Lavinia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Site 1 Site 2


39/58



Comparison

Graph 12 Comparison of beach safety survey data from Location A and Location B

Word Count 151

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10



40/58



Analysis

To compare the two locations, five characteristics were considered; qualitative observations

such as pictures, the amount of litter at each of the sites, the potential hydrogen (pH) of water from

each of the sites, the transmittance of light through the water and finally a safety survey was

conducted. Water transmittance was measured as a way of judging the cleanliness of the water, as

the amount of light passing through the water would reduce as the amount of dirt in the water

increases.

In terms of picture comparisons, pictures of drains (Figure 14) showing trash stuffed in them

at Galle Face shows the abundance of garbage and the general uncleanliness of the area. To combat

this happening however, the Sri Lanka Navy has volunteered to clean Galle Face Green as a part of

their other duties.11 In addition to this, pictures of the cannons at Galle Face (Figure 19) stand for thecultural significance of Galle Face Green. However, other images such as the image of the beach in

site 2 (Figure 14) again shows the incessant amounts of trash at Galle Face. It can be said that this

trash is due to direct pollution and not due to other factors such as sediment transfer and long shore

drift, as the presence of groins and gabions would prevent this. So, it can be said that despite the

fact that trashcans are abundantly available at Galle Face (Figure 18), the public still litter

incessantly. Thus, it can be said that the tireless effort of the Navy is neutered.

In the case of Mount Lavinia on the other hand, the its aesthetic beauty is evident due to its

relatively spotless beach (Figure 21). This is due to the fact that employees from the hotel andsurrounding establishments clean the beach at regular intervals. Despite this however, small

amounts of litter can be seen on the beach (Figure 22). The liter seen in these pictures is reflected in

the litter survey conducted at the two sites. However, the wall of the hotel facing the sea has a large

amount of litter on it (Figure 23). Upon inquiry, it was discovered that during high tide the water

reached the rocks near the wall. Thus, the litter accumulated here can be attributed to long shore

drift rather than direct pollution.

When aesthetics and qualitative observations alone are considered, the winner is clear;

Mount Lavinia Beach. However, due to the fact that Galle Face Green has very high culturalsignificance, its value is greatly increased.

To consider the potential hydrogen (pH) test however, a Spearmans Rank Correlation

Coefficient test was conducted. As the !

value obtained was nearer to +1 than -1, it could be

concluded that there is indeed a strong positive correlation between the values of the pH survey. 12

This could be attributed to the fact that nautically, these locations are close, so factors such as long-

shore drift may have cause pollution and other acidic and alkaline materials to be distributed in the

seas in the vicinity of Colombo. A possible point of waste distribution is the drain from the Beira

11 (Sri Lanka Navy)12 (Royal Geographical Society)


41/58



Lake (Figure 16). As this lake originates from the city, it could have industrial waste from factories

along the Beira Lake, which could contribute to the average Galle Face pH of 6.669. The water from

Mount Lavinia Beach on the other hand was more alkaline, with an average potential hydrogen

(pH) value of 8.1235. As acidic water is more dangerous than alkaline water, it can be said that due

to pollutants from the Beira Lake, water at Mount Lavinia is less harmful when compared to GalleFace Green.

When the water transmittance of the water from the two locations is considered, the water

from Mount Lavinia has an average water transmittance of 100.115%. As this value is above 100%

light transmittance, it would mean that the water is completely clear. The fact that this reading is

over 100% can be attributed to the light rays that would reflect off salt crystals dissolved in the

water. When compared to Galle Face Green, the transmittance of water in Mount Lavinia is higher.

However, within Galle Face, there are large disparities between the water transmittance of site 1

and site 2 when compared to site 3. In site 1, the average water transmittance is 97.015%. In site 2,the average water transmittance is 95.395%. However in site 3, the water transmittance drops to

97.072%. A sever drop in water transmittance can be seen between site 1, 2 and site 3. This could be

due to the fact that the drain from Beira Lake into the sea is in site 3. In addition to this, other

construction projects in the Greens vicinity13 could contribute to the waters uncleanliness. Due to

the green color (Figure 16) of the water from the drain, less light would pass through the water.

Finally, in terms of the safety, both Mount Lavinia and Galle Face have poor safety records.

If the averages were to be considered, 30% of all individuals at Galle Face stated that they would

visit the location alone after 6pm. The issue of Galle Faces security has been a public concern in thepast.14 Contrastingly, 55% of individuals asked at Mount Lavinia stated that they would visit the

beach alone after 6pm. This could be attributed to the fact that Mount Lavinia is located in a

suburban area, 12km from the city center. Upon observation, it was noted that at Galle Face Green,

the type of people present after 6pm tended to be more violent, and restricted to large amounts of

young males. At Mount Lavinia on the other hand, due to the large amount of restaurants available,

the number of families at the beach increases dramatically after 6pm.

Word Count - 959

13 (The Sunday Times Newspaper)14 (Gunaratna)


42/58



Conclusion

The results proved the hypotheses established at the beginning of the report. In the case of

Mount Lavinia, it lacked preventive measures, as there was only a single wall protecting the

railway track. In this site 1, the entire beach remained unprotected, as there were no visible forms of

protection. On the other hand, at Galle Face, the government has implemented a wide variety of

coastal protection mechanisms such as gabions and groins. They prevent long shore drift and

reduce beach erosion. In addition to this, the presence of a sea wall further protects the coastal

headland from retreating and the green would not be affected. Therefore, it can be said that

hypothesis 1 is true for location A (Galle Face Green), but proved false for location B (Mount

Lavinia Beach).

The second hypothesis was undoubtedly true since both locations have been affected by

human interaction. However, the extent to which this interaction has damaged the locations varied.

In the case of Galle Face Green, the presence of a drain from the Beira Lake and incessant littering

proved to be the problems created by unplanned human activities. Although the Sri Lankan Navy

cleaned the Beira Lake, they lack public support in maintaining the environment. However, in the

case of the Mount Lavinia, the qualitative data shows that the area is not polluted at all when

compared to Galle Face Green. Thus, it can be said that hypothesis 2 is true for location A (Galle

Face Green), but false for location B (Mount Lavinia Beach).

For the final hypothesis, it can be said that it was proved true for both locations. Qualitative

observations show that Mount Lavinia has a large number of private security guards appointed by

the hotels. On the other hand, Galle Face Green had security provided by the Sri Lankan Army. In

addition to this, the results from the safety survey correlated with the hypothesis that Mount

Lavinia was deemed as a safer place to visit at night.

Overall the study reflects that the coastal management techniques varied between the two locations

due to many reasons. Therefore, it could be suggested that there is need for integrated management

across various sectors such as tourism and urban planning. Coastal erosion results from the natural

action of waves, currents and a variety of human activities.

Word Count 385


43/58



Evaluation

This investigation was highly successful as wide variety of factors was considered. For

example, the analytical tools and parameters analyzed at Galle Face and Mount Lavinia effectively

illustrated all characteristics of the locations. However, the Spearmans rank correlation coefficient

was not accurate due to small size of the data.

The investigation could be improved if the collection of data was more. Larger samples

representing wider population base would reflect in depth understanding about the activities of

population on the beach. The same holds true for scientific data as well, where more water samples

would have led to an understanding of quality of the surrounding beach environments.

In conclusion, I feel that despite the shortcomings endured during the course of the

investigation, the amount of research conducted in this area contributed to the unique learningexperience of pursuing an independent research project.

Word Count 141


44/58



Bibliography

Central Intelligence Agency. CIA - The World Factbook -- Sri Lanka. 15 3 2012. 20 3 2012

.

Daily Mirror Online. Daily Mirror Sports. 25 2 2012. 29 4 2012

.

Department of Government Information. Sri Lanka tourist arrivals increase in February. 16 3 2012.

Government of Sri Lanka. 22 3 2012 .

Google Inc. Google Maps. 2 5 2012. 2 5 2012 .

Gunaratna, Harischandra. "Galle Face Green: A hive on undesirables." The Island 2 8 2006: 4.

Independent Television Network Web Division. GALLE FACE CLEARED OF LITTER ON

PRESIDENTS INSTRUCTIONS. 5 9 2011. 21 5 2012 .

Kamphuis, W J. Introduction to Coastal Engineering and Management. Singapore: World Scientific

Publishing Company Ltd., 2010.

Kirill. Colombo World Trade Center (tallest buildings in Sri Lanka). 28 1 2012. 15 5 2012

.

Mount Lavinia Hotel. Mount Lavinia Hote :: Location. 15 4 2012. 29 4 2012

.


45/58



. Mount Lavinia Hotel :: History. 15 4 2012. 29 4 2012

.

Purported Management Agreement or Lease enetered into on 12/15/2003 by the UDA (Urban

Development Authority) and E.A.P. Networks (Pvt) Ltd, whereby it was sought to hand over the

management and control of the 14 acre promenade of Colombo - the Galle Face Green tp E.A.P.

(Pvt) Ltd. No. 47/2004. The Supreme Court. Colombo, Sri Lanka: 2 11 2005.

Royal Geographical Society. "Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient Excel Guide." 26 2 2013.

Royal Geographic Society. 27 2 2013 .

Sri Lanka Navy. Naval Personnel volunteer to keep Galle Face Beach Front clean and beautiful. 22 1

2010. 21 5 2012 .

. Navy assists in cleaning polluted Beira Lake . 29 5 2011. 21 5 2012

.

The Sunday Times Newspaper. Indias ITC now finalises deal, Sheraton moves to Kollupitiya. 13 5

2012. 21 5 2012

.


46/58



Appendix A: Raw Data and Readings

Galle Face

Qualitative ObservationsSite Qualitative Observation

1

Plotted plants are placed alongside thewalkway.

This is the busiest site at Galle Face. There are 24 permanently structured shops

alongside the walkway.

Rock armor is present near the Galle FaceHotel.

Due to erosion, a rock slab can be seenbetween the pier and the hotel.

There is a colossal amount of graffitipresent on all walls, including the rock

platform.

There are many mobile vendors.

2

The beach is the longest in this section. There are no shops in site 2, only mobile

vendors are present.

The slope of the beach in this section ishigher.

There are street lamps and potted plants inthe area, but they have not been

maintained.

3

The beach is wider in this section. Only a groin and a sea wall15 are present to

protect the beach from erosion.

There is a large amount of visible waste inmaterials dumped in the area.

This site is more crowded than site 2, butless crowded than site 1.

The walkway fades into a pavementalongside the road.

The beach has developed since it is asheltered area and due to the prevailing

action of long shore drift.

There is rubble dumped in the area, butthis acts as rock armor to protect the coast

from erosion.

*Refer Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6

15 (Kamphuis)


47/58



Litter Survey

SiteNumber of Pieces of Litter

Plastic Glass Paper Other

1 0 0 0 25

1 (%) 0% 0% 0% 100%2 34 24 23 7

2 (%) 38.6% 27.3% 26.1% 8.0%

3 12 30 14 4

3 (%) 20% 50% 23.3% 6.7%

Table 1 Unprocessed litter survey results for Location A

Potential Hydrogen (pH)

Site ReadingPotential Hydrogen (pH)

[0.01]

1

1 6.69

2 6.70

3 6.65

4 6.73

5 6.74

6 6.64

7 6.64

8 6.75

9 6.63

10 6.74

2

1 6.74

2 6.54

3 6.65

4 6.70

5 6.68

6 6.73

7 6.69

8 6.64

9 6.59

10 6.69

3

1 6.56

2 6.68

3 6.67

4 6.45

5 6.75

6 6.67

7 6.66

8 6.56

9 6.80

10 6.70

Table 2 Unprocessed potential hydrogen (pH) readings for Location A


48/58



Water Transmittance

Site Reading Transmittance (%) [0.01%]

1

1 84.78

2 99.98

3 99.99

4 99.98

5 85.52

6 99.98

7 99.98

8 99.99

9 99.97

10 99.98

2

1 107.58

2 93.03

3 90.98

4 91.92

5 91.34

6 91.61

7 92.81

8 94.44

9 94.69

10 105.55

3

1 89.74

2 99.97

3 88.44

4 99.98

5 76.26

6 94.42

7 99.98

8 89.93

9 91.46

10 90.54

Table 3 Unprocessed water transmittance readings for Location A


49/58



Safety Survey

Question: Would you visit Galle Face Green after 6pm, alone?

Site Person No. Answer

1

1 No

2 No

3 No

4 No

5 No

6 No

7 Yes

8 No

9 No

10 No

2

1 No2 Yes

3 No

4 No

5 No

6 Yes

7 No

8 No

9 Yes

10 No

3

1 Yes

2 Yes

3 No

4 Yes

5 No

6 No

7 No

8 Yes

9 No

10 YesTable 4 Unprocessed safety survey results for Location A

Beach Safety Survey

Type of Security Galle Face

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Security Guards 2 1 1

Lifeguards 0 1 0

Table 5 Unprocessed beach safety survey for Galle Face


50/58



Mount LaviniaQualitative Observations

Site Qualitative Observation

1

This site had significantly lessestablishments than site 2, as the MountLavinia Hotel occupies most of the space.

Private security guards, hired by the hotelsupervise the area.

Despite the fact that having privatebeaches in Sri Lanka is illegal, the security

guards do not permit people who are not

guests at the hotel to use the beach.

The size of the beach is large enough toaccommodate sports such as rugby.

2

The Mount Lavinia Train station is locatedin this site.

The train tracks pass extremely close to thesea, which is only protected by rock armor.

During high tide there is no room forpeople to walk on the beach; only the train

track can be used.

There are many unauthorized temporaryhouses near the train station.

There are a large numbers of permanentlystructured boutique shops in this area.


51/58



Litter Survey

SiteNumber of Pieces of Litter

Plastic Glass Paper Other

1 4 0 3 1

1 (%) 50% 0% 37.5% 12.5%2 5 7 1 8

2 (%) 23.8% 33.3% 4.8% 38.1%

Table 6 Unprocessed litter survey results for Location B

Potential Hydrogen (pH)

Site ReadingPotential Hydrogen (pH)

[0.01]

1

1 8.13

2 8.15

3 8.07

4 8.15

5 8.05

6 8.01

7 8.25

8 8.13

9 8.17

10 8.08

2

1 8.16

2 8.23

3 8.04

4 8.19

5 8.14

6 8.13

7 8.10

8 8.04

9 8.13

10 8.12

Table 7 Unprocessed potential hydrogen (pH) readings for Location B

Water TransmittanceSite Reading Transmittance (%) [0.01%]

1

1 99.98

2 99.97

3 99.98

4 99.98

5 99.97

6 101.56

7 99.98

8 99.979 99.98


52/58



10 99.98

2

1 99.97

2 99.98

3 99.98

4 99.975 106.58

6 99.97

7 94.58

8 99.97

9 99.97

10 99.98

Table 8 Unprocessed water transmittance readings for Location B

Safety Survey

Question: Would you visit Mount Lavinia Beach after 6pm, alone?

Site Person No. Answer

1

1 Yes

2 No

3 Yes

4 No

5 No

6 No

7 Yes

8 No

9 Yes

10 Yes

2

1 No

2 Yes

3 No

4 Yes

5 Yes

6 Yes

7 Yes8 No

9 Yes

10 No

Table 9 Unprocessed safety survey results for Location B

Beach Safety Survey

Type of Security Mount Lavinia

Site 1 Site 2

Security Guards 7 1

Lifeguards 1 0Table 10 Unprocessed beach survey results for Mount Lavinia Beach


53/58



Appendix B: Averages for Litter Survey Processing

Galle Face

Avg(LocationA) =

0+34+12

3+0+ 24+30

3+0+23+14

3+25+ 7+ 4

3

4

Avg(LocationA)= 57.67

Mount Lavinia

Avg(LocationB) =

4+ 5

2+0+ 7

2+3+1

2+1+8

2

4

Avg(LocationB)=14.5


54/58



Appendix C: Averages forPotential Hydrogen

(pH)ProcessingGalle Face

Avg(Site1,LocationA) =6.69 + 6.70+6.65+6.73+6.74+6.64+6.64+6.75+6.63+6.74

10

Avg(Site1,LocationA) = 6.691 0.1

Avg(Site2,LocationA) =6.74+6.54+ 6.65+ 6.70+ 6.68+ 6.73+ 6.69+ 6.64+ 6.59+ 6.69

10

Avg(Site2,LocationA) = 6.6650.1

Avg(Site3,LocationA)=6.56+6.68+6.67+6.45+6.75+6.67+6.66+6.56+6.80+6.70

10

Avg(Site3,LocationA)=

6.65

0.1

Avg(LocationA) =6.691+ 6.665+ 6.65

3

Avg(LocationA) = 6.669

Mount Lavinia

Avg(Site1,LocationB)=8.13+8.15+8.07+8.15+8.05+8.01+8.25+8.13+8.17+8.08

10

Avg(Site1,LocationB) = 8.1190.1


55/58



Avg(Site2,LocationB)=8.16+8.23+8.04+8.19+8.14+8.13+8.10+8.04+8.13+8.12

10

Avg(Site2,LocationB) = 8.1280.1

Avg(LocationB) =8.119+8.128

2

Avg(LocationB)=8.1235


56/58



Appendix D: Averages for WaterTransmittanceProcessing

Galle Face

Avg(LocationA,Site1)=84.78+99.98+99.99+99.98+85.52+99.98+99.98+99.99+99.97+99.98

10

Avg(LocationA,Site1)= 97.015%0.1%

Avg(LocationA,Site2) = 107.58+93.03+90.98+91.92+91.34+91.61+92.81+94.44+94.69+105.5510

Avg(LocationA,Site2) = 95.395%0.1%

Avg(LocationA,Site3)=89.74+99.97+88.44+99.98+76.26+94.42+99.98+89.93+91.46+90.54

10

Avg(LocationA,Site3)= 92.072%0.1%

Avg(LocationA) =97.015%+ 95.395%+ 92.072%

3

Avg(LocationA)= 94.8273%

Mount Lavinia

Avg(LocationB,Site1)=99.98+99.97+99.98+99.98+99.97+101.56+99.98+99.97+99.98+99.98

10

Avg(LocationB,Site1)=100.135%0.1%


57/58



Avg(LocationB,Site2) =99.97+99.98+99.98+99.97+106.58+99.97+94.58+99.97+99.97+99.98

10

Avg(LocationB,Site2) =100.095%0.1%

Avg(LocationB) =100.135%+100.095%

2

Avg(LocationB)=100.115%


58/58


Appendix E: Calculation of Spearmans Rank

correlation coefficient for pH

SamplepH Average

(Location A)

Rank

(Location A)

pH Average

(Location B)

Rank

(Location B)

1 6.596666667 3 8.145 6 -3 9

2 6.713333333 8 8.19 10 -2 4

3 6.556666667 2 8.055 1 1 1

4 6.64 6 8.17 8 -2 4

5 6.746666667 10 8.095 4 6 36

6 6.6 4 8.07 2 2 4

7 6.713333333 9 8.175 9 0 0

8 6.55 1 8.085 3 -2 49 6.626666667 5 8.15 7 -2 4

10 6.686666667 7 8.1 5 2 4

!= 9+ 4 + 1+ 4 + 36 + 4 + 0 + 4 + 4 + 4

!= 70

= 10

!= 1000

! = 990

!= 1

6 !

!

= 1 670

1000 10

= 1 420

990

Documents

A Comparative Study of Coastal Management in Sri Lanka