Managed realignment at Medmerry
Medmerry moved the defence line inland and allowed an area to become intertidal habitat. The completed scheme was celebrated in November 2013.
This case asks who benefits from a changed coastal boundary. New habitat and flood-risk management must be considered alongside the land-use change.
Saved on this browser. An example’s listed role does not certify that it covers every specification dimension.
Evidence and its scope
| Claim | Period and scope | Source |
|---|---|---|
| The Environment Agency described the scheme’s completion in November 2013. | 4 November 2013 | Open source |
Possible requirement roles
- Coastal managementIdentify the defended or realigned coastal stretch.; Explain how the intervention changes risk and sediment or habitats.; Evaluate consequences for different people and timescales.
- An ecosystem and its managementIdentify the ecosystem’s scale and processes.; Explain interactions and human pressures.; Do not attribute every change to a single cause.
Explain the changed boundary
Identify the former defence line, the land made available to tidal water and the land protected behind the new line. The changed boundary links physical processes to decisions about land use.
Use the historical scheme evidence alongside the coastal-systems lesson. The generated landscape on the topic page is an imagined coast, not an image of Medmerry.
Compare geographical explanations
Compare holding a shoreline in place with moving a defence inland. Consider habitat, maintenance and the land-use costs for different groups.
Evidence needed for a fuller case study
- A dated map of former and new defence lines
- Current operational monitoring and maintenance evidence
- Evidence from affected land users and habitat monitoring