ocma2958 proof

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2012) 1e10

Contents lists available

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

High-rise development of the sea-front at Fortaleza (Brazil): Perspectives on itsvaluation and consequences

D.P. Paula a,b,*, J.M.A. Dias a,b, Ó. Ferreira a, J.O. Morais b

aCIMA, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005 Faro, PortugalbUniversidade Estadual do Ceará/PROPGEO/LGCO, Av. Paranjana 1700, Campus do Itaperi, Fortaleza, Ceará 60740000, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

* Corresponding author. Universidade Estadual doCampus do Itaperi, Fortaleza, Geografia, Ceará 60732633478; fax: þ55 85 31019885.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], davispp

0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.004

Please cite this article in press as: Paula, D.P.,consequences, Ocean & Coastal Managemen

a b s t r a c t

Occupation of the Fortaleza’s coastline began in the 17th century following the arrival of the Dutch andsubsequent construction of the fortress after which the city is named. Urban development of the coastbegan in the early 19th century. The processes of occupation and urbanization along Fortaleza’s coastlineis inseparable from the history of the port and its environmental impacts (silting-up and erosion).Currently, the coast studied is one of Brazil’s most developed, densely populated and most heavilymodified by coastal engineering structures. Urban development accelerated in the 1980s due to tourismactivities and led to the expansion of high-rise construction along the beachfront. Intensive occupationthus replaced extensive occupation. This paper explores Fortaleza’s urban development from twoperspectives. Firstly, we use historical data to document the process of high-rise development on thetourist sea-front and the modification of the same coast with coastal engineering structures designed tocontain erosion triggered by the construction of Mucuripe Harbor. Secondly, we collected field data onthe current urban fabric (including the distribution of high-rise buildings, land prices and land use) andused these data to analyze urban growth and human pressure on the coastal zone, especially the For-taleza sea-front. Extensive artificial modification of the coast has enabled Fortaleza to develop into one ofthe most important tourist resorts in Brazil. In turn, this increased economic activity has allowedincreasingly extensive and costly coastal engineering structures to be built in the area.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Sandy beaches prevail on exposed coastlines around the world(Bascom, 1980). Currently they are favored sites for recreation andthe development of economic activities such as beach tourism (e.g.:Klein et al., 2004) and, as a consequence, they are highly valued andsought after by modern society as a place for primary, secondary ortemporary residence (Parsons and Powell, 2001). This attractiontoward the coastal zone has triggered intense population growth,causing significant expansion of urbanized areas (both in area andheight) and great human pressure on beaches (Brown andMcLachlan, 2002).

The impacts of urbanization on coastal areas have been widelydiscussed in literature (e.g.: Turner et al., 1996; Dias and Ferreira,1997; Nicholls and Small, 2002; Sealeum et al., 2007; Ariza et al.,2008; Silva et al., 2008). Recent estimates show that 1.2 billion

Ceará, Av. Paranjana 1700,40000, Brazil. Tel.: þ55 85

@hotmail.com (D.P. Paula).

All rights reserved.

et al., High-rise developmentt (2012), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoa

people live within 100 km of coastline at elevations below 100 m,where population density is about 3 times greater than the globalaverage (Small and Nicholls, 2003). In Brazil, for example, coastlineextends for 8500 km including 300 coastal municipalities. Four ofthe ten (40%) largest metropolitan areas of the Brazil are located onthe sea-front, including Fortaleza. Half of the population (morethan 90 million people) lives less than 200 km from the sea (Araújoand Costa, 2008). Rapid population growth has been followed bya process of disorganized urbanization of coastal areas (Muehe,2004).

The high level of population density in coastal areas reduces theenvironmental resilience of beach, especially in urban zones. Heretourism has contributed to massive occupation of the coast, whichhas resulted in decrease in environmental quality at recreationalbeaches (Sealeum et al., 2007; Cervantes and Espejel, 2008; Araújoand Costa, 2008). In developed countries beaches are commonlyseen as spaces for leisure and entertainment by modern society(Ariza et al., 2008). Whereas in developing countries (e.g.: Brazil)beaches are often used for commodity exchange. Beaches thereforerepresent two interacting subsystems: one natural and the othersocioeconomic (Araújo and Costa, 2008).

of the sea-front at Fortaleza (Brazil): Perspectives on its valuation andman.2012.03.004

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09645691

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.004



D.P. Paula et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2012) 1e102

Coastal development, along with impacts of human activitiesin watersheds, has often led to a sharp decrease in sedimentsupply to coasts, resulting in coastal retreat and beach erosion.This has further caused the destruction of housing, communityfacilities and financial investments (e.g.: Bird, 2000; Dias, 2005;Ferreira et al., 2008).

Urban beaches are increasingly sandwiched between growingurban areas on the continental side and the action of waves andtides on the ocean side. Under such conditions, beaches lose theirresilience, rapidly changing in shape and extension in response tohigh-energy events (Klein et al., 2003). Human-induced changes,like the urbanization of areas too close to the shoreline, not onlyprofoundly alter the natural environment, but also sooner orlater are themselves threatened by beach dynamics. This occursespecially during high-energy events, generally prompting theconstruction of hard coastal engineering works (e.g.: Dias, 1990).These cause changes in coastal characteristics and dynamics,reducing beaches’ ability to adapt to natural events, and directlyinterfering in their sedimentary balance (e.g.: Dias, 1990; Swensonand Franklin, 2000; Nordstrom, 2000; Hansen, 2010).

Intensive urban development took place in Fortaleza in the1980s, a period in which Fortaleza’s economic interests shiftedfrom the hinterland and began to focus almost entirely on the coast(Dantas, 2002). Thus it ceased to be a harbor city and became one ofthe most sought after tourist destinations in Brazil. This trans-formation was ruled by the intense urbanization of the coastlinestarting in the late 1960s and peaking in the 1980s (Vasconcelosand Coriolano, 2008). Between 1960s and 2011 Fortaleza’s pop-ulation grew more than 250%. During the first 10 years of the 21stcentury Fortaleza’s population has grown more than the nationalaverage. Fortaleza is the 5thmost populous municipality (2,447,409peoples) in Brazil (IBGE, 2010). This growth was achieved due topublic and private investments in urban (e.g.: harbor, airport, rail-road and freeway) and tourist (e.g.: hotel, resort, restaurant andnight club) infrastructure.

Along Fortaleza’s shoreline, coastal erosion and the encroach-ment of the urban area have turned a natural landscape intoa heavily urbanized cityscape where, through hard coastal engi-neering structures (groynes, harbors, marinas, jetties and landreclamation), the current coastline has become completely artificial.

The way of life in cities with such a high degree of urbanizationpromotes distinct social patterns and physical structures. Theintense flow of capital and people, and limitations on physicalspace, lead to high-rise construction. This type of construction wasadopted during the industrial revolution in Europe, where three- tosix-story buildings appeared in major cities (Mascaró andYoshinaga, 2005). In the U.S.A, this type of construction wasadopted in the 19th century in the cities of Chicago, New York andManhattan Island. The first of these constructions rose tomore than100 m (or more than 30 floors). In Brazil, high-rise construction atcoastal areas started in 1920 in the cities of São Paulo (SantosBeach) and Rio de Janeiro (Copacabana Beach). In the cities of NEBrazil, constructions of buildings on sea-front started in1950se1960s (e.g.: Fortaleza, Recife and Salvador).

This form of development, also referred to as verticalization, ischaracterized by the replacement of urban constructions (houses)and open spaces by intensive ormultifamily buildings. This process,common in modern urban structure, is more prevalent in areas ofintense market speculation. In Fortaleza, this occurs mainly in thearea surrounding the Beira Mar Avenue, built in 1963 and extend-ing from Iracema Beach to Mucuripe Beach, and where the mainclubs, hotels, flats and restaurants are found. In Rio de Janeiro, high-rise processes on the sea-front intensified after the CopacabanaPalace hotel construction (Copacabana Beach) in 1923 (Ficher,1994).

Please cite this article in press as: Paula, D.P., et al., High-rise developmentconsequences, Ocean & Coastal Management (2012), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoa

In many Brazilian cities the maximum height limitation onbuildings on the sea-front was established in the 1990s, prior to thistime there was only regulation on the construction site. The LandLaw (1960s) stipulated that in most coast cities, including Fortaleza,all residential areas located on the sea-front and next to the rivermust had a maximum building height of three (3) to four (4) floors.Presently, for most of the coastal cities of Brazil (e.g.: Fortaleza,Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Balneário Camboriú) the limit allowed forbuildings on the sea-front varies from 60 m (20 floors) to 75 m (25floors). In Fortaleza’s specific case, this limit is 72 m (24 floors).

Carleial and Araújo (2011) point out that high-rise build-up inFortaleza was linked to economic activities in the industrial sector,later extending to high-income neighborhoods for residential, andlater commercial, purposes. Somekh (1997) calls this process themultiplication of urban land, made possible by the elevator. Thus,verticality is said to be linked to the intensive use of urban land(density) and the pattern of technological development.

This study analyzes the major changes that occurred along theFortaleza shoreline between the 1960s and 2000s, aiming atunderstanding how human interference (intensive urbanization e

connected largely to touristic activities) contributed to the massoccupation of the coast and its associated impacts.

2. Materials and methods

Information on all urban facilities along the Beira Mar Avenue(Fortaleza) was recorded during fieldwork carried out in 2010. ADifferential Global Positioning System (DGPSGTRG2/GLONASS)with a precision of 10 mm/1 ppm (kinematic module) was used torecord the information about the buildings located along the sea-front. Information collected included geographic coordinates,types of building (office, residence, institutional, mixed, hotel andothers), name of the building, number of floors, year of constructionand maximum distance from the coastline, the width of the beachsidewalk and its distance from the highest tide line. This informa-tion was inserted into a database in a Geographic InformationSystem GIS. The geographical identification of the buildings andtheir use allowed to map zones of interest (e.g.: Public, private andtechnological). Moreover, the buildings geographic distributionallowed to identify occupied blocks and their occupation type (e.g.:residential, tourist and commercial activities).

The rate of verticalization and value (per square meter) wascalculated from documents made available by the City Hall of For-taleza (PMF), the Regional Council of Realtors (CRECI), the Union ofEnterprises for Buying, Selling, Leasing and Managing Property ofCeará (SECOVI-CE), and information found in newspapers. Thesedata showed some inaccuracies in the field and were corrected asrequired. The rate of construction was determined by the ratiobetween the number of buildings built and the number of yearsunder analysis (10, in this case, since the scale used is based ondecades).

To quantify vacant land and the advancement of the urban front,aerial photographs of Fortaleza (1968, 1972, 1978, 1995 and 2004),TM-LANDSAT (1978, 1980, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004 and 2005)andQuickBird images (2003 and 2010)were used. This imagerywasconverted to the same projection and datum and analyzed usingARCGIS 9 software. Each geographic item recorded was assigned toone ormore categories for incorporation into the database, allowingitems with similar land-uses to be extracted and analyzed.

We calculated the distance between the urban front (buildings,blocks, sidewalks and stalls) and the maximum wave run-up levelon the day of the experiment by inserting the coordinates collectedin the field into a georeferenced base-map of the area. Distancesfrom each urban structure and the maximum wave run-up werethen calculated.


D.P. Paula et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2012) 1e10 3

3. Study area

The study area is in the city of Fortaleza, the capital of Ceará State,Northeast Brazil. The city faces the equatorial Atlantic Ocean with34 km of sandy beaches and has an average altitude of 21 m abovesea level (IBGE, 2010). The geographical position of the city, locatedjust below the equator, makes it a popular tourist destination forEuropeans and Americans. Fortaleza has the highest populationdensity among the Brazilian state capitals: about 8000 inhabitantsper square kilometer. The city experiences a semi-arid climate withrather small temperature amplitude (average maximum: 30�;average minimum 24�). Its climatic conditions are influenced by theInter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and variations in theseasonal phenomena of El Niño (which occurs in the dry season) andLa Niña (marked by rainfall above the regional multi-annualaverage). Geologically, the city sits on the quartz sand sediments ofthe coastal plain, consisting of beach and marine terraces, mobileand fixed sand dunes and fluvialemarine plains.

The tidal regime is semidiurnal meso-tidal, ranging from 0.5 mto 3.87 m (INPH, 1996). For 95% of the year, waves approach fromthe east (90�), with dominant significant wave heights of less than1.5 m and wave periods of less than 10 s. Waves from the northeastoccur occasionally (5% of the time) with significant height greaterthan 1.5 m, and average period of 12 s (INPH, 2002). These wavesare largely responsible for beach erosion (Melo et al., 1995). Theprevailing winds consistently come from EeSE at an average speedof 4 m/s, but can reach 7 m/s in the second half of the year (Maiaet al., 1996).

Fortaleza has more than 30 km de coastline, which is limited byPacoti (east) and Ceará (west) rivers. Only a 7.5 km stretch of beachis considered in this study, corresponding to the traditional tour-istic sea-front e the north coast e comprising the following bea-ches: Iracema (2.1 km), Meireles (1.5 km), Náutico (1.0 km) and

Fig. 1. Location of the Fortaleza


Mucuripe (2.9 km). Immediately adjacent to and connecting thesebeaches is the Beira Mar Avenue (Fig. 1). Seventeen geometricallydissimilar blocks are strung along the landward side of the avenue.Sandy beaches are situated between Mucuripe Harbor (east) andIracema Beach. About 90% of the coastline is affected by hardcoastal engineering structures (Valentini and Rosman, 1992).

Beira Mar beaches are at present characterized by a narrow stripof sand, averaging 45 m wide, with wider beaches in the middlesector and narrower ones to the east. There is a stretch of 300 mbetween Náutico Beach andMucuripe Beach, known as the Volta daJurema, which has no beach, but only rocky outcrops (beach rocks)averaging 30 m in width and submerged at high tide. According toPaula et al. (2008), Beira Mar beaches are intermediate in type,tending toward more reflective stages during storm events,apparently as a consequence of the coastline’s high degree of arti-ficial modification.

The touristic Beira Mar sea-front of Fortaleza is located ina region with a population density of 8200 inhabitants/km2,reaching 12,000 inhabitants/km2 at Mucuripe Beach. The averagemonthly income of the population that lives along Beira MarAvenue is R$2500 (U.S. $1506). However Náutico Beach residentshave an average income of R$4000 (U.S. $2409), five times theaverage income of Fortaleza as a whole: R$ 800 (U.S. $482) (IBGE,2010).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. The historic processes

The origins of urban development in Fortaleza can be tracedback to 1649 AD, when the Dutch constructed the SchoonemborchFortress on the banks of the Pajeú Creek. Fortalezawas promoted tothe status of city in 1726. However, intensive occupation of the

study area in NW Brazil.



coastal area of Fortaleza only began in the early nineteenth centuryand was linked to the construction of the city’s harbor. The firstberth of Fortaleza, of a temporary character, was made of wood andstone and was built in 1804 in the area of Prainha (east of Praia deIracema) (Espindola, 1978). In 1844 it was replaced by another one,resting on wooden piles, located in the vicinity of the current Poçoda Draga, Iracema Beach (Meyll, 1930).

These first port facilities quickly became inoperable due topronounced silting-up. The problemwas so intense that in 1860s itwas no longer possible to embark at low tide (Morais, 1972). At thispoint, the city was clustered around the port infrastructure, thecoastal front only occupying around 3 km (today’s historical center)near Iracema Beach. Along the coast east of this area (today’stouristic sea-front), extensive dunes stretched from the coastlinefar into the interior.

In order to solve the silting-up problems, a 670-m breakwater(known as the Hawkshaw Breakwater) was constructed (Valentiniand Rosman, 1992). However, these works increased the siltingprocess to the point where a shoal formed along the eastern side ofthe breakwater, while a shallow sandbank completely occupied theport basin. This is visible in the French Navy hydrographic chart of1867, in which the completed Hawkshaw Breakwater is shown (theonly artificial intervention to the coastline at the time). Morais(1972) point out that the low waterline moved 400 m out to seafrom its previous location, some 130 m from the present location ofBeira Mar Avenue. In an attempt to reduce coastal sediment supply,several dunes were vegetated to curtail aeolian transport. Groyneswere also built, but the problem persisted.

In 1899, a new port structure (known as the Metal Bridge), wasbuilt updrift of the Hawkshaw Breakwater. The structure(completely permeable) did not induce sediment accumulation,thus avoiding silting-up problems. Port warehouses were evenbuilt over the adjacent dunes with the aim of diminishing aeoliantransport to the harbour basin. Nevertheless, the occupationremained restricted to the port area and urban expansioncontinued toward the city center.

After thirty years, structural problems on the Metal Bridgeposed safety risks to the arrival and departure of people and goodsto/from Fortaleza. The structure no longer met the social, economicand commercial demands of the city, and was decommissioned.The port began to be transferred to Mucuripe Bay in 1933, a sitepreviously occupied only by fishing communities (Morais, 1981).Two decades before, the Mucuripe dunes had been stabilized withvegetation, possibly with the dual purpose of preventing the sandfrom reaching the city via easterly winds, and allowing theexpansion of the urban agglomeration.

The basic infrastructure for Mucuripe Port was completed in1938. However, the main protective structure- the Titan jetty/breakwater- did not prevent harbor silting-up problems as expec-ted (Pitombeira, 1976). In fact, it induced intense coastal erosion ofIracema Beach, where the old port was located. These were the firstcoastal erosion problems recorded along the Fortaleza coastline. Inan attempt to stop this erosion, four rip-rap groynes were builtprior to 1945. More or less simultaneously, Fortaleza’s urban areastarted to expand toward Mucuripe Harbor (east), occupying morethan 6 km of shore front. Since that time, Fortaleza’s population hasincreased by 463% (data from the year 2000: IBGE, 2010). In the1950s the Titan breakwater was extended to 1910 m and theTitanzinho (Little Titan) groyne (1 km long) was built at Praia doFuturo, immediately updrift of the Titan, in order to retain littoraldrift and avoid harbor siltation (Castro, 1989). Success was,however, questionable: the harbour continued to accumulatesediment and erosion along Beira Mar intensified, leading to thereorganization of all the coastal hard engineering structuresbetween Iracema and Meireles Beaches (Maia et al., 1998).


In the process of coastal development in Fortaleza, it is impor-tant to bear in mind the occurrence of drought episodes, which arecharacteristic events in Ceará. For example, the year 1951 wasa drought year, with precipitation reduced to only 747 mm for theregion as a whole (Morettin et al., 1993). Some locations hadconsiderably lower rainfall than this average value. As highlightedby newspapers of the time (Nobre, 1973), there was a strong urbangrowth that year because labor was cheap and there was anincrease in rents, a strong incentive to build. Sources related to thegovernment (Souza, 1979) calculated that, during that period, closeto eightymillion Cruzeiros (more than U.S. $90,000 at the time) wasspent building the city.

Following an episode of severe coastal erosion, the urban facil-ities of Iracema Beach migrated to Meireles Beach, where lesserosion was observed. According to the technical report of the 4thDistrict of Ports, Rivers and Canals (DPRPC), erosion of these bea-ches was responsible for the first house collapses in the history ofCeará (Parente, 1965). As a temporary solution, the State Govern-ment authorized the construction of three rip-rap seawallsbetween Iracema and Meireles beaches in 1963 and six groynes onthe west coast.

Jucá (2000), based on newspaper reports of the time, estimatedthat about 200 m of beach were eroded in a period of 10 years, withan average erosion rate of about 20 m/year. Presumably this wasone of the highest erosion rates recorded on the Ceará coast duringthe last two centuries. Contrary to what could have been expected,elite landowners were slow to shift from Iracema Beach toMeireles,despite all the problems related to coastal erosion.

During the 1970s, erosion problems continued along the coast ofFortaleza. According to Salim (1998), by 1975 the coastline of For-taleza was artificially altered by 12 groynes, 4 rip-rap seawalls, 2bridges, an oil jetty and 2 breakwaters, spread between MucuripeHarbor and the mouth of the Ceará River. In the late 1970s, the westcoast of Fortaleza was totally artificial, being mainly defined bycoastal hard engineering structures constructed in response toerosion triggered by construction of the port.

Thanks to the sense of security lent by the coastal-defense hardstructures, occupation of the seaside zone increased, namelythrough the construction of Beira Mar Avenue and the replacementof extensive low-rise buildings (houses) by intensive, high-risedevelopments. This happened mainly in the area between Náu-tico and Meireles beaches. The 1980s and 1990s were marked bythe massive occupation of the coastal zone driven by tourism. Thisintensified the process of high-rise development of the sea-front. In1998, the construction of the International Airport of Fortalezaconfirmed the status of the city as a major tourist destination inBrazil, indirectly enhancing Beira Mar’s occupation density.

On the other hand, the growth of the city led to stabilization ofthe dune fields and the canalization of rivers and urban streams,affecting the vulnerable balance of sediments on the coastline e

Coastal erosion thus intensified. The same situation was observedby Costa et al. (2008) on the shoreline of Boa Viagem Beach in Recife(NE Brazil). The 2000s were characterized by the intensification ofhigh-rise construction as a model for the urban development of thecity, especially the touristic sea-front. This process brought newinvestment in urban infrastructure, with the aim of adapting thecoastal area to the demands of the tourism industry and therequirements for hosting the 2014 World Cup.

Urbanization is a major determinant of the vulnerability of thecoastline to high-energy events (storms). In this case, it is impor-tant to point out that these events seem to be increasing infrequency, intensity and impact on coastal infrastructure (Vilibicet al., 2000). According to information published by MunicipalGovernment of Fortaleza and circulated in local newspapers, thecost of reconstructing the affected areas is very high and Fortaleza


Fig. 2. Number of high-rise buildings constructed on Beira Mar Avenue between the1960s and 2000s.


spent more than 200 million Reais (more than U.S. $120 million) inthe 2000s on such works. It is estimated that, by 2014, over R$400million will be spent (U.S. $400 million), exacerbating the level ofenvironmental modification, and probably reaching an unsustain-able level of economic expenditure. Today, the Fortaleza sea-front istotally modified by residential and commercial buildings, hotels,flats, restaurants, recreational clubs and unyielding protectivestructures.

4.2. Evolution of urbanization/verticalization

4.2.1. Verticalization rateThe first high-rise buildings (more than 12 floors) were built in

the 1970s near the fish market in the area of Mucuripe, the tradi-tional domain of fishermen and their rafts. According to data fromSECOVI-CE, it is estimated that the average construction ratewas 1.6buildings per year between 1960 and 2000, varying over time (2.7

Fig. 3. Distribution of buildings by use category alon


buildings per year in 1980, 3.3 in 1990). In 2009, there were around77 buildings, two of which were in the final stages of construction(Fig. 2). The rate of construction between the 1980s and 1990s wasthe highest in history, reaching a figure of 7.1 buildings per year,driven by investments in tourism and the concentration of the elitein this stretch of the city. The hectic pace of growth slowed in the2000s due to the lack of spaces suitable for construction.

4.2.2. Distribution of buildingsThe number of buildings per block is variable (1e19), reflecting

an average occupancy rate of 4.6 buildings/block. The number ofbuildings per block increases in from Iracema Beach to MucuripeHarbor, i.e. from the sector that suffered the greatest erosiontoward the least affected. The buildings also feature different formsof use, with special emphasis on residential (54.5%) and hotelfacilities (20.8%) (Fig. 3).

The data reveal that the tourist sea-front is mainly residential,although commercial and hotel facilities have increased over thelast decade. Mucuripe Beach has the largest number of buildings(37 units), almost 50% of the total sample. Meireles Beach, to thewest, has one third of all the buildings, while Náutico Beach, in thecentral sector, has 18% of the buildings. On the whole extension ofthe sea front, only two blocks are primarily residential (B3-MeirelesBeach and B13-Mucuripe Beach).

The buildings are 14.5 floors high on average. TheMucuripe areais home to the tallest buildings of all (26 floors) (Fig. 4). This areaalso has six buildings that exceeded the allowable height limit forconstructions on the sea-front. Only two buildings exceeded thelimit in the area of Meireles and Náutico, while other buildings arein accordance with state law However, it is also at this area that thelargest number of low-rise buildings (up to 5 floors) is found on thesea front e a church, two houses and ten commercial outlets(shops, bars and restaurants). Maia et al. (1996) have observed thatbetween 1974 and 1994 there was a decrease in average windspeeds of 1.1 m/s and an average temperature rise of 0.8 �C in thecity. Their period of analysis coincides with the peak of high-risedevelopment along the sea-front of Fortaleza, but further evalua-tion of the data still needs to be made to make sure that the

g the touristic beach front of Fortaleza in 2010.


Fig. 4. Distribution of buildings by number of floors for each urban block along thetouristic beachfront of Fortaleza in 2010.


temperature variation was not regional, and, in this case, notattributable to urbanization.

4.2.3. Distribution of vacant land and valuation of buildingsCurrently, there are no blocks on the touristic sea-front occupied

by houses (low-rise construction) that could be demolished by thehigh-rise building industry, as was the case on the edge of BoaViagem in Recife, Brazil (Costa et al., 2008). Vacant lots along thesea-front were completely built over by 2008. By analyzing aerialphotographs and satellite images, it can be seen that in 1995 therewere only 10 empty lots suitable for construction, and these wereall used up by 2008. From 1995 to 2003, there was a reduction of70% in vacant areas. Most of the land was used for the constructionof office and residential buildings. Due to the lack of space, spec-ulative investors, represented by large construction companies,began to purchase low-rise buildings (up to 5 floors) and demolishthem for new ventures. The main targets were social clubs: of thethree clubs existing in the 1990s, only one remained in 2011.

If thismodeof constructionwere to continue,we envisage that 14high-rise buildings could still be constructed along Fortaleza’s sea-front (two on Meireles Beach, five on Náutico Beach and seven onMucuripe Beach). It is important to consider that this estimate canonly take effect through the purchase and demolition of existinglow-rise buildings. The scarcity of land suitable for constructionboosted the short-term value of seaside property. According to theRegional Board of Realtors of Ceará (CRECI), land value on thebeachfront has increased more than 80% in the last 40 years.

There are properties located in the Meireles and Mucuripeneighborhoods whose prices exceed R$8000/m2 (over U.S. $4800/m2). The high value of these properties is related to natural features(ocean view) and the proximity to essential services, such aspharmacies, hospitals, clinics, schools, day-care centers, colleges,supermarkets, banks, malls, department stores and restaurants. TheMucuripe and Meireles neighborhoods are the most expensive inFortaleza, as they offer all the essential services in addition to anocean view.

4.2.4. Seaward advance of the urban boundaryThe complete artificial stabilization of the coastline has facili-

tated the process of touristic economic development of the sea-front in Fortaleza. At the same time, this development has signifi-cantly contributed to strengthening the coastal engineering struc-tures that define the shoreline. An expensive feedback loop hasthus been created. The coastal engineering structures provideoccupation security and therefore raise the value of urban spaces.


During high-energy events, damage or threats to human occupa-tion prompt the reconstruction, reinforcing and amplification ofcoastal engineering structures, which in turn maintain or reinforcethe economic and tourism value of adjacent spaces.

The poorly planned of coastal land and rapid development of thecoast has decreased the environmental quality of beaches andconsequently there has been a reduction in the competitiveadvantage these tourist areas in relation to tourist areas where thecoast is better preserved. Along sea-front intense high-rise devel-opment has led to an increasingly artificial coastal zone. Thisprocess is associated with the transformation of natural spaces intohumanized ones.

Increasing human pressure on the coastal zone and the unsus-tainable use are incompatible with the support capacity of theseenvironments, which will certainly be reflected in the artificiality ofthe landscape and consequent of environmental impacts (e.g.:urban flooding, landslide, rise in temperature, coastal erosion andmarine pollution).

In the specific case of the tourist cities, there was an increase ofurbanization by the sea due to high-rise development of the sea-front. Urban development has exacerbated the problems of coastalerosion on the main tourist beaches of Brazil. In many cases(including Fortaleza, Recife, Jaboatão dos Guararapes, Rio de Janeiro,Balneário Camboriú) the coastline itself is defined by urbanization(e.g.: buildings line, sidewalk, avenue and road). Coastal vulnera-bility is thus defined by the degree of coastal urbanization (Fig. 5).With urbanization close to the sea, waves more easily reach urbaninfrastructure and endanger drainage systems, sewers, lamp post,roads, cycle lane, squares, fish markets, statues, houses, buildingsand sidewalks. Governments are then forced to invest in coastalprotection to prevent damage to property. Devaluation of public andprivate property is likely to decrease the tourism attractiveness ofthe city, impacting heavily on the municipality’s.

The advance of the sea in some regions has resulted in thedestruction of urban infrastructure. To prevent coastal impacts andallow beach recovery, beach nourishment was carried out in someareas (e.g.: Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro, FlamengoEmbankment-RJ in Rio de Janeiro, Piçarras Beach in Santa Catarinaand Iracema Beach in Ceará). Beach nourishment is an attempt toartificially stabilize a naturally migrating shoreline. Artificiallyrenourished shorelines provide two benefits: increased area forrecreation and greater protection against coastal storms.

In Pernambuco a proposal for beach nourishment between thecities of Jaboatão dos Guararapes and Recife (more than 20 km ofcoastline) is the subject of current debate. The coastal work willcost several billion dollars. The high costs to keep the coast safe andwith sufficient environment quality to attract tourism must becovered by the state, since Brazilian Government is solely respon-sible for investments in coastal protection. This demonstrates thelong-term unsustainability of economic activities that are incom-patible with the support capacity of beaches.

Considering a scenario where the coast is hit by a high energyevent (sea storm) that exceeds the protections capacity of coastalengineering structures, destruction of public property (road, side-walk and power poles), private homes and beach huts and coastalflooding are inevitable. The tendency is then to reconstruct thesedefensive structures, making them larger, stronger and “safer”,amplifying the sense of security and thus creating a feedbackprocess whose consequences are difficult to estimate. In the case ofFortaleza, retreating urban facilities would be an uneconomicalshort- to medium-term option because of the high associated costs.This must be viewed in the light of the impetus, now rather slight,to further advance urbanization toward the sea through landreclamation, rip-raps and groynes, which, when established, willmake the sustainable use of natural resources completely


Fig. 5. High-rise development along Brazilian coastline. In Fortaleza (A) and Jaboatão dos Guararapes (B) the coastline is defined by groynes, rip-raps, sidewalks and buildings.


unfeasible. The hand-in-hand relationship between coastal engi-neering structures and high-rise development means that thecoastline is increasingly suffering from human intervention(building of larger structures) and the natural coastal systems havebeen completely altered.

The average seaward advance of the urban boundary was 174 mbetween the years 1972 and 2008, representing an average changeof 4.8 m/year (Fig. 6A). The blocks that migrated the most were B14(7.2 m/year), B15 (8.8 m/year) and B16 (7.1 m/year). The last twoblocks are located on Mucuripe Beach, which has undergone majortransformations in the 1990s, as it was the stretch with the highestnumber of spaces suitable for construction. Disorderly advance ofurban facilities on coastline increases the risk of property damagein areas of technological (e.g.: Mucuripe Harbor), public (e.g.:


sidewalks, historical sculptures, and urban roads) and privateinterest (beach huts, hotels, houses, shops, restaurants and bars) inthe event of a large storm (Fig. 6B). Muehe (2001) emphasizes thatconstruction on sandy soil and beach strips with a width of lessthan 150 m should be avoided due to the risk of flooding anderosion by waves.

Buildings on Beira Mar Avenue are, on average, 75 m away fromthe maximum spring tide level. In some places that distance is only25m, i.e. Meireles Beach. Between the first row of buildings and theartificial coastline lie the Beira Mar Avenue, its sidewalk, and beachhuts. Beira Mar Avenue is on average 10 mwide and 62 m from thehigh tide line. The sidewalk is on average 12 mwide and 50 m awayfrom the spring high tide level. In some stretches, like on MeirelesBeach, this distance is reduced to 15 m. Beach huts are on average


Fig. 6. Seaward advance of the urban boundary per block (A) and zoning of the areas of interest (B) along the touristic sea-front of Fortaleza. The front-line of constructed buildingsas of 1972 is also shown for reference.


40m from the reach of the tide and waves, making themvulnerablein the event of sea storms.

The urban front of Fortaleza is exposed to ocean storm eventswhen swell waves cause a build-up of water mass along the coast,thus causing a local sea-level rise that may overtop the first artifi-cial line (4.6 m above hydrographic zero, over a long shore distance

Fig. 7. Waves crashing over the sidewalk and flooding Iracema Bea


of more than 2 km) (Paula et al., 2008). During storms, it is clearthat the advance of urbanization increases the vulnerability of thecoast to wave energy, causing physical damage such as destructionof the sidewalk, flooding of the avenue and the infiltration of waterinto electrical conduits, causing blackouts in the lampposts thatilluminate the shore.

ch during the storm of December, 2009. Source: Rapha Bessa.



Observation of a storm like the one that took place in Fortalezabetween March 18 and 24, 2011, in which urban structures wereeasily reached, allows us to identify three areas of impacte the firstzone lies between Iracema and Meireles beaches (west), wheremarine flooding by overtopping often occurs (Fig. 7); the secondzone is restricted to the stretch of Náutico Beach (central), in whichthe morphology of the beach is altered; and the third zone is sit-uated onMucuripe Beach (east), where the waves reach the edge ofthe sidewalk, and there is no overtopping of the first artificial line.

4.3. Problems of high-rise urban development

The unregulated development of the sea front of Fortaleza hasled to a scarcity of green spaces, which have been replaced byasphalt pavement and concrete, materials that retain heat andincrease the temperature in the city, leading to thermal discomfortfor the communities living on the outskirts. Covering the city inimpermeable materials, such as asphalt and concrete, helps toincrease the risk of flooding, as both stormwater and sea water canaccumulate near the coastline, as has already occurred at IracemaBeach. Another factor contributing to increased flood-risk in areasof Fortaleza is the extensive excavation of sand ridges for numeroussea-front constructions.

An unsavory result of the intense urbanization of the city,especially the sea-front, is that the sewerage network has failed tocope with the growing population (more than 2.5 million inhabi-tants), causing wastewater to be illegally dumped into stormwaterdrains. Once this water reaches rivers and beaches, the pollutionexceeds the allowable health limits for bathing. Beaches on thetourist coast have elevated concentrations of fecal coliforms linkedto storm water carrying sewage (e.g.: Silva et al., 2009).

According to Bulletin No. 18/2011 of the State Bureau ofEnvironment (SEMACE, 2011), which reports weekly ratings ofthe coastline, Iracema and Mucuripe beaches were unsuitablefor bathing between April 4 and May 2, 2011. In addition, theincreased production of domestic garbage eventually clogs drainsand prevents the flow of sediment to the beach.

The poorly planned occupation of coastal areas has led to arti-ficiality of the landscape, reducing environmental resilience. Theconstruction of urban infrastructure and stabilizations of sanddunes have contributed to an imbalance in sediment supply to thebeaches of the north coast of Fortaleza. The intensification ofurbanization on the sea-front has effectively fixed the backshorezone, interfering with the natural mobilization of sedimentbetween the emerged and submerged beach. The loss of thecoastline’s ability to move makes it more vulnerable to severeerosion in the event of a storm.

5. Conclusion

The process of urbanization of Fortaleza’s Beira Mar was initi-ated as a result of port activities: first on Iracema Beach and laterwith the construction of Mucuripe Harbor. The construction of theTitan Breakwater induced strong coastal erosion that reached theurban front of Iracema Beach, followed by the construction ofcoastal engineering structures that artificially altered the coastline.Since 1975, Fortaleza’s coastline has been essentially a man-madeone. Erosion triggered by the construction of harbor defensescontributed to the decentralization of occupation of Fortaleza’s seafront. The city’s recorded history clearly demonstrates that earlyengineering attempts to stabilize the Fortaleza coast caused portfacilities to become completely silted up and the western beachesto erode.

Later, the sense of security instilled by coastal engineeringstructures, along with increasing demand for tourism, led to the


expansion of adjacent urban areas, increased high-rise develop-ment, and raised land prices on the sea-front. Despite the coasthaving been made fully artificial through coastal engineeringstructures, the constructed properties are not fully protected fromthe action of sea storms,which destroy roads, sidewalks and homes,and cause coastal flooding. Following any failure of these engi-neering structures, there is a tendency to rebuild them into larger,stronger and “safer” structures, which, in turn, further increase thissense of security.

High-rise development of Fortaleza’s coastline is nearlycomplete, and there are no more spaces available. The next stagewill be the demolition of older high-rise buildings (5e12 floors), toprovide room for much taller buildings (30 floors). In this process,the northern coast of Fortaleza is likely to lose its touristic appeal,and tourists will increasingly seek alternatives in adjacent areas(Praia do Futuro and Barra do Ceará) or nearby (Beach Park andCumbuco). It seems conceivable that, given the other viablealternatives, the north coast of Fortaleza will be avoided by beachtourism operators in the medium term, possibly resulting in itseconomic devaluation (at least in the adjacent and nearby areas).

In the short, Fortaleza’s tourist coast (high-rise development ofthe sea-front) will extend westward to enable the city to host theWorld Cup 2014. New tourist infrastructure (e.g.: hotel, resorts,restaurant) is required to accommodate the expected visitors. Theresult will bemajor changes in the landscape to its appropriation byprivate interests, as well as significant impacts on the social andeconomic fabric of the city. In the future, economic interests,tourism potential and environmental quality should be carefullyweighed up by planning authorities, allowing a true estimate of thesustainability or otherwise of the current model of high-rise coastaldevelopment.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of ConselhoNacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico-CNPq(479255/2009-1) and Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvi-mento Científico e Tecnológico-FUNCAP (Support Program forCenters of Excellence-PRONEX). Davis Pereira de Paula was sup-ported by FUNCAP. We would like to thank the teachers andstudents of the Laboratório de Geologia e Geomorfologia Costeira eOceânica (Univ. Estadual do Ceará) and the Centro de InvestigaçãoMarinha e Ambiental (Univ. Algarve). The authors are grateful toDr. Simon Connor for the English revision of the document.

References

Araújo, M.C.B., Costa, M.F., 2008. Environmental quality indicators for recreationalbeaches classification. Journal of Coastal Research, 1439e1449.

Ariza, E., Jiménez, J.A., Sardá, R., 2008. A critical assessment of beach managementon the Catalan Coast. Ocean & Coastal Mangement 51, 141e160.

Bascom, W., 1980. Waves and Beaches: The Dynamics of the Ocean Surface. AnchorPress, Garden City, New York.

Bird, E.C.F., 2000. Coastal Geomorphology: An Introduction. John Wiley, Chi-chester, UK.

Brown, A.C., McLachlan, A., 2002. Sandy shore ecosystems and the threats facingthem: some predictions for the year 2025. Environmental Conservation 29,62e77.

Carleial, A.N., Araújo, A.M.M., 2011. Atlas de Fortaleza 2000. EDUECE, 110 pp.Castro, J.W.A., 1989. Dinâmica sedimentar entre as praias do Futuro e Iparana.

Centro de Pesquisas em Geologia Ambiental, Fortaleza.Cervantes, O., Espejel, I., 2008. Design of an integrated evaluation index for recre-

ational beaches. Ocean & Coastal Mangement 51, 410e419.Costa, M.F., Araújo, M.C.B., Cavalvanti, J.S.S., Souza, S.T., 2008. Verticalização da Praia

de Boa Viagem (Recife, Pernambuco) e suas consequências sócio-ambientais.Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 8 (2), 233e245.

Dantas, E.W.C., 2002. Mar à Vista: estudo da maritimidade em Fortaleza, first ed.,vol. 1. Museu do Ceará/SECUL, Fortaleza, pp. 1e134.



Dias, J.M.A., 2005. Evolução da zona costeira portuguesa: forçamentos antrópicos enaturais. In: Encontros Científicos e Turismo, Gestão, Fiscalidade. ISSN:1646-2408, vol. 1, pp. 7e27.

Dias, J.A., Ferreira, Ó., 1997. Gestão costeira e conhecimento científico: Uma per-spectiva integrada. In: Colectânea de Ideias sobre a Zona Costeira de Portugal.Associação Eurocoast e Portugal, Porto, pp. 229e237.

Dias, J.M.A., 1990. A Evolução actual do litoral português. In: Geonovas. ISSN: 0870-7375, vol. 11, Lisboa, Portugal. pp. 15e28.

Espindola, I., 1978. O Porto de Fortaleza, Fortaleza-CE, 61 pp.Ferreira, Ó., Dias, J.M.A., Taborda, R., 2008. Implications of sea-level rise for conti-

nental Portugal. Journal of Coastal Research 24 (2), 317e324.Ficher, S., 1994. Edifícios altos no Brasil. Espaço & Debates, São Paulo 37, 61e76.Hansen, H.S., 2010. Modelling the future coastal zone urban development as

implied by the IPCC SRES and assessing the impact from sea level rise. Land-scape and Urban Planning SI 98, 141e149.

IBGE e Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2010. Censo Populacional.INPH e Instituto de Pesquisas Hidroviárias, 2002. Relatório final de medições de

ondas, No. 013/2002, Código Pécem 130/41, Rio de Janeiro. pp. 1e62.INPH e Instituto de Pesquisas Hidroviárias, 1996. Relatório final dos estudos em

modelo físico reduzido de agitação do Porto do Pecém-CE, No. 71/96, Rio deJaneiro. 38 pp.

Jucá, G.N.M., 2000. Verso e reverso do perfil urbano de Fortaleza (1945e1960).Secretaria de Cultura e Desporto do Estado do Ceará, São Paulo, Annablume,Fortaleza.

Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., Thomalla, F., 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: howuseful is this concept? Environmental Hazards 5, 35e45.

Klein, Y.L., Osleeb, J.P., Viola, M.R., 2004. Tourism-generated earnings in the coastalzone: a regional analysis. Journal of Coastal Research SI 20, 1080e1088.

Maia, L.P., Jiménez, J.A., Serra, J., Morais, J.O., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., 1998. The Fortaleza(NE Brazil) waterfront: port versus coastal management. Journal of CoastalResearch 14 (4), 1284e1292.

Maia, L.P., Raventos, J.S., Oliveira, P.M.P., Meireles, A.J.A., 1996. Alterações climáticasna região de Fortaleza causadas por fatores naturais e antrópicos. Revista deGeologia 9, 111e121.

Mascaró, J.L., Yoshinaga, M., 2005. Infra-estrutura urbana, Porto Alegre, 207 pp.Melo, E., Alves, J.H.G.M., Jorden, V., Zago, F., 1995. Instrumental confirmation of the

arrival of North Atlantic Swell to the Ceará coast. In: Proceedings of the 4thInternational Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in DevelopingCountries e COPEDEC IV, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1984e1996.

Meyll, A.H., 1930. Porto de Fortaleza Memória justificativa do ante-projeto demelhoramento de Porto na Enseada de Mucuripe, Fortaleza, pp. 1e88.

Morais, J.O., 1972. Processo de assoreamento do Porto de Mucuripe. Arquivo deCiências do Mar 12 (2), 139e149.

Morais, J.O., 1981. Evolução sedimentológica da Enseada do Mucuripe. Arquivo deCiências do Mar 21 (1), 19e46.

Morettin, P.A., Toloi, C.M.C., Gait, N., Mesquita, A.R., 1993. Analysis of the relation-ships between some natural phenomena: atmospheric precipitation, mean sealevel and sunspots. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia 8 (1), 11e21.

Muehe, D., 2004. Erosion in the Brazilian coastal zone: an Overview. Journal ofCoastal Research SI 39, 43e48.


Muehe, D., 2001. Critérios morfodinâmicos para o estabelecimento de Limites daOrla costeira para fins de gerenciamento. Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia 2(1), 35e44.

Nicholls, R.J., Small, C., 2002. Improved estimates of coastal population and expo-sure to hazards released. EOS Transactions 83 (2), 301e305.

Nobre, G.S., 1973. A capital do Estado do Ceará. Gráfica Editorial Cearense, Fortaleza.1e82.

Nordstrom, K.F., 2000. Beaches and Dunes on Developed Coasts. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Parente, J.G., 1965. Relatório técnico dos trabalhos executados pelo 4� Distrito dePortos, Rios e Canais em Fortaleza, pp. 1e10.

Parsons, G.R., Powell, M., 2001. Measuring the cost of beach retreat. CoastalManagement 29, 91e103.

Paula, D.P., Soares, R.C., Morais, J.O., Dias, J.M.A., Pinheiro, L.S., 2008. Aplicação degeoindicadores na avaliação da tendência evolutiva do litoral oeste de Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. In: III Congresso Brasileiro de Oceanografia, Fortaleza-CE. pp. 1e3.

Pitombeira, E.S., 1976. Deformação das ondas por difração do molhe do porto deMucuripe (FortalezaeCearáeBrasil). Arquivo de Ciências do Mar 16 (1), 55e58.

Salim, L.H., 1998. Implementação do modelo numérico de evolução de praia eGenesis e em um trecho litorâneo da cidade de Fortaleza e Ceará, MSc thesis.

Sealeum, S., Inkapattanakul, W., Navanugraha, C., 2007. Environmental qualityassessment criteria for recreational beach: a case study of Cha-Am Beach,Petchburi Province. Environment and Natural Resources Journal 5 (1), 69e79.

SEMACE e Superintendência Estadual do Meio Ambiente, 2011. Boletim Semanal deClassificação das praias.

Silva, J.S., Leal, M.M.V., Araújo, M.C.B., Barbosa, S.C.T., Costa, M.F., 2008. Spatial andtemporal patterns of use of Boa Viagem Beach, Northeast Brazil. Journal ofCoastal Research 24 (1A), 79e86.

Silva, A.C., Pinheiro, L.S., Maia, L.P., Morais, J.O., 2009. Estudo hidrodinâmico Ebacteriológico associado às fontes Pontuais de Poluição ao longo do litoral deFortaleza. Revista Brasileira de Recuros Hídricos 14 (2), 83e90.

Small, C., Nicholls, R.J., 2003. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones.Journal of Coastal Research 19 (3), 584e599.

Somekh, N., 1997. A cidade vertical e o urbanismo modernizador. Studio Nobel, SãoPaulo.

Souza, J.G., 1979. O Nordeste Brasileiro: uma experiência de desenvolvimentoregional. Banco do Nordeste do Brasil, Fortaleza, pp. 1e410.

Swenson, J.J., Franklin, J., 2000. The effects of future urban development on habitatfragmentation in the Santa Monica Mountains. Landscape Ecology 15, 713e730.

Turner, I.M., Tan, H.T.W., Chua, K.S., 1996. Relationships between herb layer andcanopy composition in tropical rain forest successional mosaic. In: Singapore. J.Trop. Ecol., vol. 12, pp. 843e851.

Valentini, E.M.S., Rosman, P.C., 1992. Erosão costeira em Fortaleza. Revista Brasileirade Recursos Hídricos 10 (1), 19e36.

Vasconcelos, F.P., Coriolano, L.N.M.T., 2008. Impactos sócio-ambientais no litoral:um foco no turismo e na gestão integrada da zona costeira no Estado do Ceará/Brasil. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 8 (2), 259e275.

Vilibic, I., Leder, N., Smircic, A., 2000. Storm surges in the Adriatic Sea: an impact onthe coastal infrastructure. Coastal Zone Management. Periodicum Biologorum102 (1), 483e488.


ocma2958 proof

Travel