On the fringes of the law? Territorial Management and Legal Conflicts in Vulnerable Coastal Environments in Northeast Brazil

On the fringes of the law? Territorial Management and Legal Conflicts in Vulnerable Coastal Environments in Northeast Brazil | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article On the fringes of the law? Territorial Management and Legal Conflicts in Vulnerable Coastal Environments in Northeast Brazil Eduardo Lacerda Barros, Melvin Moura Leisner, Yan Gurgel Vasconcelos, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7368390/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the effectiveness of territorial management tools and public policies applied to the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos, in Icapuí, Ceará, in northeastern Brazil, analyzing the forms of occupation of a Beach-Cliff System and the impacts of coastal erosion. The methodology adopted combined documentary analysis, field surveys, and geoprocessing. A total of 168 legal landmarks between 1831 and 2024 were identified and analyzed through research in government databases and a literature review. The field survey included geospatial mapping using GNSS RTK and drones, enabling the collection of accurate data on occupation and coastal dynamics. The overlay of this information in a Geographic Information System (GIS) allowed the identification of violations of environmental protection zones and risk areas. The results indicate that more than 700 occupations are located within legal protection zones, exacerbating the impacts of erosion and the risks associated with cliff occupations. Praia da Redonda has the highest density of occupations, including buildings on cliffs. Praia da Peroba suffers from accelerated erosion and a lack of effective containment, while Praia de Picos presents increasing risks due to the proximity of buildings to the coastline. Poor enforcement and the difficulty of applying legal frameworks are critical challenges. Greater integration between government levels, coastal requalification, and strengthening of environmental governance are recommended. In addition, preventive measures, such as ecological zoning and the recovery of degraded areas, are essential to mitigate negative impacts and promote more balanced development. Raising awareness among the local population and strengthening environmental enforcement are essential to ensure the preservation of local ecosystems and the safety of coastal communities. Coastal resilience Climate adaptation Coastal planning Sustainable development Coastal governance Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Highlights Over 700 buildings were identified within legally protected coastal areas in Icapuí (Brazil), revealing widespread non-compliance with environmental legislation. Despite the existence of at least 168 legal instruments in Brazil, Ceará and Icapuí (1831–2024), enforcement of territorial planning in high-risk beach-cliff systems remains ineffective. The study applies a GIS-based approach combining UAV imagery, topographic surveys, and legal zoning buffers to assess land use conflicts. Local and state legislation, including CONAMA Resolution 303/2002 and Municipal Law No. 540/2010, are systematically disregarded in practice. Findings underscore the need for integrated coastal governance, preventive planning, and nature-based solutions aligned with legal enforcement. 1. Introduction Coastal erosion is a phenomenon widely observed in various coastal regions around the world, especially in the state of Ceará, located in northeastern Brazil. This process has intensified due to a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors. In the global context, sea level rise driven by climate change, together with the increased frequency and intensity of storms, are the main drivers of accelerated erosion processes in coastal areas (Luijendijk et al. 2018; Vousdoukas et al. 2020; Cooper et al. 2020; Soares et al. 2021; Pang et al. 2023). The natural dynamics of beaches in Northeast Brazil are under increasing pressure due to the activities of various economic sectors, such as real estate, tourism, industry, and ports. Factors such as disorderly occupation of coastal areas, population growth, degradation of dune systems, construction of dams on rivers, urban infrastructure, and, paradoxically, coastal protection works themselves contribute to the imbalance of the sediment supply system (Morais; Pinheiro, 2011; Paula et al. 2013; Paula et al. 2015; Pinheiro et al. 2016; Moreira et al. 2020; Lacerda Barros et al. 2020; Lacerda Barros et al. 2021). Coastal erosion is evident along more than 3,000 km of shoreline in the region, significantly affecting cities such as Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador, and Natal. This situation has become even more critical when considered in conjunction with the effects of ongoing climate change (Small; Nicholls, 2003; McGranahan et al. 2007; Smith, 2011; Seto et al. 2011; Barbier, 2015; Andrew et al. 2019; McMichael et al. 2020; Lv et al. 2021; Paula et al. 2022). In Ceará, the situation is equally worrying. All 20 coastal municipalities in the state face stretches of severe coastal erosion. According to the Contingency Action Plan for Coastal Erosion Processes (PCEC) of the State of Ceará, published in 2024, more than 47% of the 573 km of its shoreline already show some erosion problems. These results corroborate the observations of Morais et al. (2018), which already indicated a trend of coastal stretches undergoing erosion remaining close to 50%. Of the municipalities most affected by coastal erosion in Ceará, Icapuí stands out as a critical and consolidated hub. The beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos, for example, have experienced intense erosion of their shoreline over the past 10 years, resulting in the destruction of urban infrastructure and homes. According to Lacerda Barros et al. (2024a), this problem is equally evident on other beaches in the municipality, such as Barreiras de Cima, Barreiras de Baixo, and Barrinha, where coastal ecosystems and local communities, which depend on tourism and fishing, are increasingly vulnerable. The history of erosion in Icapuí reveals that, since the early 2000s, buildings near the shoreline have suffered significant damage due to the advancing sea (Lacerda Barros, 2018; Chacanza et al. 2022; Leite; Almeida, 2023 and Chacanza et al. 2024). In response to this situation, the municipal government has built some rigid coastal protection structures, such as rockfill on the beaches of Barreiras de Baixo (2009), Barrinha (2011), and Redonda (2019). In addition to these public initiatives, many residents have erected their own structures over time, using materials such as concrete walls, wooden walls, and sandbag barriers. In 2025, intervention at Peroba Beach by the city government began with the construction of a breakwater, one of two planned for the area. Williams et al. (2018) and Lacerda Barros et al. (2021) highlight that measures such as these are controversial, mainly due to flaws in planning, management, and monitoring, as well as technical construction challenges. Climate change poses new challenges for coastal management, such as rising sea levels, increased storms, and intensified erosion, threatening both the safety of populations and environmental integrity. In this context, the integration of these policies needs to recognize the dynamic and uncertain nature of the problem, allowing for continuous adjustments, always based on community values (Burger et al. 2016; Lawrence et al. 2018; Asmus et al. 2018; Andrés et al. 2018; Asmus et al. 2019; Loizidou et al. 2024; Correa, 2024). Awareness of the region’s most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change is fundamental to effective decision-making, as stated by Nicolodi; Peterman (2010). Based on this understanding, it is possible to identify the importance of legal and regulatory frameworks, which play a crucial role in the evolution of coastal management regulation. Although public policy is predominant, there is a diversity of complementary approaches, such as technical documents and international commitments, reflecting institutional maturity. However, these approaches also reveal that much remains to be done to improve coordination between different sectors of society, especially regarding integrating academia with decision-makers and involving society. Given this scenario, it is essential to adopt management and mitigation measures that include non-structural alternatives based on nature, such as the restoration of natural ecosystems and urban reorganization. Brazil has several legal tools, such as the National Coastal Management Plan, the Orla Project, and Municipal Master Plans (De Gouveia Souza, 2009; Scherer, et al. 2010; De Oliveira; Nicolodi, 2012; Scherer, 2013), which should be employed in non-structural coastal erosion management actions. It is essential to investigate the effectiveness of land management tools and public policies already implemented to mitigate the impacts of coastal erosion. Thus, this study evaluates the effectiveness of these tools and actions applied to the beach-cliff system of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos, in the municipality of Icapuí, Ceará, Northeast Brazil. The study seeks to identify gaps in the implementation of existing regulations and based on this, propose recommendations to improve the management of these areas. 1.1 Study Area The municipality of Icapuí is located 202 km from Fortaleza, the state capital, in the Northeast Region of Brazil. Access is via highways CE-040, BR-116, and BR-304. Its coastline stretches for approximately 46 km, encompassing 14 beaches distributed among the districts of Icapuí (Sede), Ibicuitaba, and Manibu (Meireles et al. 2016). For coastal management purposes, this area is designated as Sector 1 (East Coast) of the Coastal Management of the State of Ceará (GERCO-CE). The beaches of Picos, Peroba, and Redonda, the spatial focus of the study, are located in the western part of the municipality of Icapuí, on the coastal stretch of the municipal seat (Figure 01). The study area is located within the Berçário da Vida Marinha Environmental Protection Area (APA), a State Conservation Unit for Sustainable Use. Predominantly marine, this APA is part of a local mosaic of conservation units, situated between two municipal APAs: the Ponta Grossa APA and the Manguezal da Barra Grande APA. This stretch of the Ceará coast is part of the emerged portion of the Potiguar Basin, highlighting geological outcrops from the drift phase of this basin. The main geological formations are the Jandaíra Formation (Cretaceous, composed of limestone), the Barreiras Formation (Miocene, with conglomerates and sandstones), and the Potengi Formation (Quaternary, with aeolian sandstones) (Ximenes Neto et al. 2024a). These formations support sedimentary marine cliffs and paleocliffs along the coast, giving rise to significant geomorphological features. The study area also contains environments formed during the Holocene, which are essential to the current landscape configuration, resulting from sedimentary and geomorphological processes. Specifically, it is associated with a Late Holocene marine terrace, formed in the last 1,200 years BP (Ximenes Neto et al. 2024b). This terrace, located between the paleocliffs and the current coastline, is crucial for understanding the processes of erosion and sedimentation, generating important information for understanding regional environmental evolution. Along the Icapuí Coastal Plain, there are geomorphological features resulting from sea level variations in the Quaternary period, including Holocene marine terraces, dunes, cliffs, paleocliffs, beaches, lagoons, and coastal lagoons. Their formation and evolution are related to global events of marine regression and transgression at the end of the Quaternary period (Meireles et al. 1991; Meireles, 2011; Ceará, 2016; Ximenes Neto et al. 2024). Some geomorphological units, such as cliffs and coastal dunes, both receive sediments from mass movements and aeolian processes and act as sediment sources for current coastal dynamics (Morais et al. 2006; Pinheiro et al. 2016; Lacerda Barros et al. 2024b). The climate in Northeast Brazil is influenced by the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), where the northeast and southeast trade winds meet. Rainfall occurs mainly between February and May, with a dry period during the rest of the year, with variations due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon (Marengo et al. 2017). Intermittent surface drainage and the semi-arid climate contribute to the low volume of sediment available for the beach system and continental shelf of Ceará (Morais; Pinheiro, 2011). According to FUNCEME, the historical average rainfall in Icapuí is 714 mm. The coast of Ceará has a semi-diurnal mesotidal regime, with maximum amplitudes of 3.3 m (Morais, 1981; Maia, 1998; Pinheiro et al. 2016), reaching up to 3.8 m in Icapuí, according to the Areia Branca (RN) Tide Table. According to the Wavewatch III model, waves reach up to 2.2 m between December and March and vary from 0.8 m to 1.5 m in the other months, with periods between 4.1 s and 9.9 s (Lacerda Barros, 2018). Swell waves have periods between 10 s and 11.5 s. In Ceará, sea waves predominate (72%), while swell waves represent 28% (Carvalho et al. 2007). Coastal drift occurs mainly in an east-west direction. 2. Materials and Methods The methodology of this study was structured in four stages, with the aim of evaluating the application of territorial management tools on the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos. The detailed stages are briefly described in the flowchart and paragraphs below (Figure 02). Step 1: Defining the spatial area and delimiting the shoreline The initial stage of the study focused on defining the spatial scope. The beaches were selected based on the degree of erosion, existing coastal protection infrastructure, and the pattern of occupation both along the cliffs and near the shoreline. Thus, the analyzed shoreline is 3.5 km long and extends to the cliff plateau, which is located behind the study area. In September 2024, we conducted fieldwork to map the current position of the shoreline of the three beaches under study. This survey took place during a spring tide, which coincidentally occurred during a supermoon tide. We used a high-precision GNSS RTK receiver, configured in UTM, Datum SIRGAS 2000, Zone 24S. In addition, during the collection, we recorded descriptive and photographic observations about the conditions of the coastline directly on the equipment collector. The criterion adopted to define the coastline was the maximum tidal range. In other words, the coastline was determined by the Current Maximum High Tide Line (LPMA) during the spring tide. In the case of the beaches analyzed, as they are erosion centers, the LPMA coincided, when it existed, with the base of coastal works, in front of residences and the base of cliffs and frontal dunes, directly dialoguing with criteria defined in other studies, such as those proposed by Crowell et al. (1991), Leatherman (2003), Morton et al. (2005), Boak; Turner (2005), Baptista et al. (2011), Albuquerque et al. (2013), Mendonça et al. (2014), Muehe; Klumb-Oliveira (2014), Rangel-Buitrago et al. (2015), Lima et al. (2019), Moreira et al. (2020), Quang et al. (2021), Baía et al. (2021), Vasconcelos et al. (2021), Khakhim et al. (2024), Nascimento; Andrade (2024), Machado et al. (2024), Vasconcelos et al. (2024), and Lacerda Barros et al. (2024). Step 2: Imaging with RPA and Image Processing The beaches studied were imaged using a DJI Air 2S Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). The RPA flight followed a flight plan defined in the DroneDeploy application, with a flight mission programmed to cover the entire length of the LPMA, with a flight height of 100 m and lateral and frontal overlap of image acquisition of 70%, providing a GSD of 3 cm. To improve the positional accuracy of the images obtained, control and check points were established throughout the target area, enabling orthometric correction of the data and accurate georeferencing of the photogrammetric products generated. All points were georeferenced using a high-precision GNSS-RTK, with a maximum associated error of 4 cm. The coordinates obtained by the GNSS RTK receiver were sent to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) platform for post-processing using the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique. This ensures the accurate georeferencing of the collected GCPs and the positional accuracy of the photogrammetric products. The photogrammetric processing of the images obtained by RPA was performed using Agisoft Metashape 2.1 software. The workflow involves importing images, followed by aligning these images to generate an initial 3D point cloud. The software then creates a dense point cloud, from which a 3D mesh is generated. After that, the images are overlaid on the mesh to create a photorealistic texture. Finally, Metashape allows the generation of orthophotos and 3D models. These steps are described in the works of Westoby et al. (2012); Dewez et al. (2016); Leisner et al. (2024). Photogrammetric products made it possible to accurately identify and demarcate the position of the shoreline/LPMA, the location of occupations, and other relevant coastal features, such as the base of the cliffs (Leisner et al. 2023). Step 3: Cataloging laws, decrees, resolutions, normative acts (ordinances, normative instructions, and others) This stage consisted of cataloguing legal tools, such as laws, decrees, resolutions, ordinances, and normative instructions related to territorial management and occupation, with a specific focus on the environment and the coastal zone. Current federal, state, and municipal legislation applicable to the study area was considered. The research was conducted through the electronic portals of the Federal Government, the Government of the State of Ceará, and the Municipality of Icapuí. From the registered documents, the spatial boundaries of the protection and restricted use zones established in the regulatory frameworks were extracted. These boundaries, or buffers, were digitized and incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS), using cartographic bases and orthophotos from a survey conducted with a drone on the three beaches. For an integrated analysis, all data were superimposed, including the LPMA, the legal protection boundaries established in Brazilian legislation, and the boundaries of the coastal cliffs in the study area. Step 4: Application of territorial management tools for environmental protection, following federal, state, and municipal guidelines In the monitored section of the Icapuí shoreline, territorial management tools for environmental protection were applied whenever possible, considering local characteristics. This application followed federal, state, and municipal guidelines (Figure 03) and included: a) The Orla Project, with buffers of 50 meters for urbanized areas and 200 meters for non-urbanized areas; b) A 33-meter strip between the LPMA and the first public road, as established in the Constitution of the State of Ceará; and c) A 50-meter strip at the base and top of the cliffs. Law No. 540/2010, of Icapuí, was also applied in the analysis, in accordance with Resolution No. 303, from March 20, 2002, of the National Environment Council (CONAMA), which defines protected areas as cliff foothills, plateau edges, slopes, dunes, mangroves, sandbanks, wildlife refuges, and springs, with minimum protection strips: 50 meters for cliff bases, 100 meters for plateau edges, and 33 meters from the mean high tide line, considered the maximum in this study, for sandbanks. The delimitation of Marine Lands was excluded due to methodological difficulties in obtaining the Mean High Tide Line for the year 1831. It is also important to highlight the possible transformations in coastal areas, considering the dynamism of natural and anthropogenic processes, as well as their direct impacts on local dynamics. Muehe (2001) also points out that such delimitation often does not exceed the width of the berm of wider beaches. Therefore, the LPMA was used as the main criterion for establishing occupancy limits and protective strips on the stretch of sandy beaches in this study, aiming to simplify the application of the methodology given the multiplicity of possible criteria related to the definition of emerged beaches provided for in Brazilian legislation. This approach is also justified by the high degree of erosion and intense anthropism recorded in the natural stretch of the shoreline, which reinforces the need for a technical and uniform parameter that allows for greater precision in the delimitation of vulnerable areas and the implementation of coastal management measures. Finally, all established boundaries were spatially compared with the local reality mapped in the field, generating possibilities for analysis and identification of conflicts between human occupation and Brazilian environmental legislation. 3. Results 3.1. Analysis of territorial management and occupation tools focused on the environment and coastal areas in Brazil, Ceará, and Icapuí Between 1831 and 2024, the identified legal and regulatory corpus comprises 168 legal and infra-legal tools applicable to the Brazilian coastal zone (Figure 04). Between 1830 and 1960, only six normative milestones were recorded, showing the incipient institutional attention to environmental issues in the country, especially those related to coastal zone management. It was only in the 1980s, with the promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the creation of the National Coastal Management Plan (GERCO), established by Law No. 7,661/1988, that the Brazilian coast began to be recognized as a strategic space for territorial planning and the formulation of public environmental policies. Table 01 summarizes the main legal tools applicable to the context of the study (1831–2024), selected from among the 168 documents analyzed. Table 01: The main legal tools applicable to the context of the study (1831–2024). ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL LEGAL TOOLS YEAR TYPE DESCRIPTION National Federal Law on Marine Lands 1831 Law Defines the marine land strip based on the 1831 mean high tide line. National Federal Decree-Law No. 3,438 1941 Decree-law Regulates marine lands (33 m from the 1831 LPMA). International Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC/UNESCO) 1960 Organization Coordinates ocean research and policy under the UN. National Federal Decree No. 74,557 – Establishment of CIRM 1974 Decree Establishes the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources (CIRM). International United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 1972 Program Created after the Stockholm Conference; reference for global environmental policy. International U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 1972 Law (USA) Integrated coastal management model adopted as an international reference. National Federal Law No. 6,938 – National Environmental Policy (PNMA) 1981 Law Landmark environmental policy in Brazil. National Federal Law No. 7,661 – Establishes PNGC 1988 Law Creates the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC). National CIRM Resolution No. 01 1990 Resolution Updates PNGC guidelines. National CIRM Resolution No. 05 1997 Resolution Complements PNGC guidelines. National CIRM Resolution No. 05 – Federal Action Plan (PAF) 1998 Resolution Regulates the Federal Action Plan for the coastal zone. National Federal Law No. 9,985 – National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) 2000 Law Establishes SNUC and regulates Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs). National CONAMA Resolution No. 303 2002 Resolution Defines minimum protection buffers in sensitive areas such as cliffs and restinga vegetation. State (CE) State Law No. 13,796 – State Coastal Management Policy (PEGC) 2006 Law Regulates coastal management in the state of Ceará. National Federal Law No. 12,187 – National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) 2009 Law Regulates mitigation and adaptation actions for climate change. Municipal (Icapuí) Municipal Law No. 541 – Municipal Environmental Policy 2010 Law Establishes local environmental policy. Municipal (Icapuí) Municipal Law No. 542 – Creation of IMFLA 2010 Law Creates the municipal environmental enforcement agency. State (CE) State Law No. 14,950 – State System of Conservation Units (SEUC) 2011 Law Establishes SEUC – state-level protected areas. State (CE) State Decree No. 30,816 – Regulates SEUC 2012 Decree Details guidelines and criteria for SEUC implementation. National National Program for Coastal Line Conservation (PROCOSTA) 2017 Program Federal initiative for shoreline protection. National Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) of the Blue Amazon 2017 Public Policy National initiative for marine spatial planning through 2030. National Creation of the Beach Management Unit (NUGEP/SPU) 2018 Administrative Act Coordinates the transfer of beach management to municipalities. State (CE) State Law No. 18,298 – State Marine Policy (PERM) 2022 Law Legal framework for marine management in Ceará. State (CE) State Decree No. 35,071 – Emergency Actions in Coastal Areas 2022 Decree Defines guidelines for responding to coastal incidents and erosion. Source: The Authors. The creation of specific resolutions within the National Environment Council (CONAMA) and the subsequent development of Coastal Management Plans at the state and municipal levels consolidated a more robust regulatory framework aimed at regulating the use, occupation, and conservation of the coastal zone, highlighting an institutional shift toward an integrated and sustainable approach to this territory. The Regency Period (1831–1840), when Brazil was ruled by regents due to the minority of Dom Pedro II, was crucial for the definition of Navy Lands. These lands were initially mentioned in the Federal Law of November 15, 1831, and later detailed by Federal Decree-Law No. 3,438 of July 17, 1941. Article 1 of this decree established that Terrenos de Marinha covers a strip of 33 meters from the 1831 Mean High Tide Line, a criterion that is still in force, according to the Secretariat of Federal Property (SPU). The absence of records during the 1950s suggests that Brazil's rapid urbanization and industrialization likely occurred without accompanying environmental or territorial concerns. This historical neglect may have contributed to unplanned land occupation and the escalation of negative environmental, social, and economic impacts, consequences that persist to this day. At the international level, however, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1960 marked a significant milestone in ocean governance. As the only United Nations body dedicated exclusively to marine sciences, the IOC coordinates global initiatives in oceanographic research, the sustainable management of marine resources, and the mitigation of climate change impacts on the oceans. Between the 1970s and 1990s, greater attention was given to environmental issues and coastal management. During this period, 32 key milestones were recorded, with the 1980s standing out with 15 entries. This increase reflects the strengthening of the global environmental agenda, driven by landmark events such as the Stockholm Conference (1972), which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Rio Earth Summit, held in Brazil in 1992. Another important milestone from this period, directly related to Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), was the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. This act aimed to promote the sustainable management of coastal zones through coordination between federal and state governments across nearly the entire U.S. coastline. It became a global reference by fostering a balance between environmental preservation and the sustainable use of coastal resources. In response to international movements such as the CZMA, Brazil made important strides in coastal management. Key milestones from this period include: the creation of the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources (CIRM) through Federal Decree No. 74,557 of September 12, 1974; the National Environmental Policy (PNMA), established by Federal Law No. 6,938 of August 31, 1981; the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC), created by Law No. 7,661 of May 16, 1988, and updated by CIRM Resolution No. 01/1990 and CIRM Resolution No. 05/1997; and the First Federal Action Plan for the Coastal Zone (PAF), regulated by CIRM Resolution No. 05/1998. Despite these advances, the output during this period is still considered modest, reflecting institutional limitations and an initial, exploratory approach to coastal issues in Brazil. This movement, initiated in previous decades, gained momentum in the 2000s, when a significant increase in the number of milestones was observed, with 41 entries. This growth reflects the outcomes of implementing public policies such as the PNGC in 1988, as well as a gradual—though still limited—integration between science and governance. Among the most notable milestones of this period are the creation of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), established by Federal Law No. 9,985 of July 18, 2000, and the resolutions issued by the National Environmental Council (CONAMA), which regulate Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs). In the state of Ceará, a key milestone was the establishment of the State Coastal Management Policy (PEGC), created by State Law No. 13,796 of June 30, 2006, in alignment with the PNGC. Since its enactment, the policy has not undergone any official updates up to the conclusion of this article. During the same period, the creation of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), established by Federal Law No. 12,187 of December 29, 2009, further reinforced Brazil's sustainability agenda. In the 2010s, this movement consolidated with the introduction of 54 new legal milestones, the highest number recorded to date, indicating a period of institutional maturation and increased scientific and political engagement in decision-making processes. At the municipal level, in Icapuí, the establishment of the Municipal Environmental Policy and the Municipal Institute for Environmental Licensing and Enforcement (IMFLA), through Municipal Laws No. 541 and No. 542, both enacted on December 29, 2010, exemplifies this local dynamic. At the state level, the creation of the State System of Conservation Units (SEUC), established by State Law No. 14,950 of June 27, 2011, and regulated by State Decree No. 30,816 of January 25, 2012, was a key milestone of this phase. In 2017, the First United Nations Ocean Conference, held in New York, marked a turning point for global ocean policies. The event led to significant national commitments, such as the development of the National Program for Coastal Zone Conservation (PROCOSTA), the Marine Litter Combat Project, and the formulation of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) for the “Blue Amazon,” with targets set through 2030. In Brazil, the focus remained on practical measures, including the creation of the Beach Management Unit (NUGEP) within the Secretariat for Federal Heritage (SPU) in 2018, which established regulations for transferring beach management responsibilities to municipalities. In recent years (2020–2024), there has been a slight slowdown, with 35 milestones recorded so far. Nevertheless, the number remains high, reflecting the continued relevance of the topic. Additionally, we are currently in the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030), which may lead to a significant increase in actions and milestones by the end of the decade. This slowdown can be attributed to disruptive global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which redirected efforts toward emergency response and impacted the continuity of coastal management initiatives. 3.2. Application of Territorial Management and Land Use Tools Aimed at the Environment and Coastal Zone in the Municipality of Icapuí The implementation of territorial management and land-use planning tools is essential to ensure sustainability and the proper occupation of coastal areas, as exemplified by municipalities such as Icapuí, in the state of Ceará. Icapuí has a history of vulnerability to coastal erosion and faces challenges stemming from inadequate planning of land use and occupation along its shoreline, as illustrated in Figures 05, 06, and 07. The current national, state, and municipal legislation establishes clear guidelines for the protection and use of coastal areas, considering the specific characteristics of each environment. Along the terrestrial coastline, the protection buffer varies according to the degree of urbanization—50 meters in urbanized areas and 200 meters in non-urbanized areas. This differentiation aims to balance urban development needs with the preservation of natural resources, which are essential for maintaining biodiversity and ensuring environmental security. In addition, specific criteria are applied to environments such as sedimentary cliffs, estuaries, lagoons, and rocky shore areas, which require protection measures tailored to their natural dynamics and vulnerabilities. For example, sedimentary cliffs are subject to a 50-meter protection buffer from the cliff edge, while rocky shore areas require specific definitions within the municipal master plan, including safety zones located above the maximum storm wave reach. In flood-prone areas, boundaries are defined by contour lines located at least 1 meter above the spring high tide level (a scenario not considered in this study). These parameters, along with the 33-meter protective buffer established by the Constitution of the State of Ceará, form a crucial regulatory framework for guiding public policies and territorial management actions. This framework promotes environmental resilience and protects coastal ecosystems in the face of human pressures and climate change. At the local level, Municipal Law No. 540/2010, enacted by the municipality of Icapuí, designates several areas of significant ecological and environmental interest as protected zones. These include the bases of cliffs, plateau edges, slopes, dunes, mangroves, restinga vegetation, wildlife refuge areas, and spring zones. The legislation also establishes minimum protection buffers to ensure the conservation of these areas. For the bases of cliffs, the buffer is set at 50 meters; for plateau edges and areas near springs, the minimum distance is 100 meters; and for restinga areas, the protection zone is defined as 33 meters from the mean high tide line. Within this context, the establishment of a Sustainable Use Conservation Unit in the study area stands out as a crucial measure. Such an initiative should enable balanced human occupation while ensuring biodiversity, the maintenance of ecological processes, and environmental renewal. In a constantly changing marine environment, where beaches and cliffs are subject to coastal erosion and other impacts driven by both natural and anthropogenic factors, the preservation of fauna, such as manatees and shorebirds, is essential for maintaining ecological stability. Figure 08 presents topographic profiles obtained during fieldwork at the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos in Icapuí (CE), highlighting the relationship between cliffs and the beach zone. In Redonda, a tall and steep cliff is observed, with steps indicating successive retreats and a short transition to the beach, typical of areas subject to intense marine erosion. In contrast, Peroba displays a smoother and more continuous slope, suggesting lower instability and greater sediment coverage at the base of the cliff, which may indicate more diffuse erosional processes. The profile of Picos Beach is the most irregular, featuring multiple steps and depressions that suggest localized collapses and the influence of rainwater runoff on the cliff face. The differences among the three profiles reveal distinct morphodynamic behaviors: Redonda and Picos exhibit greater instability and higher erosion risk, while Peroba Beach shows characteristics of relatively greater stability. 3.2.1. Application of Occupation Limits According to the Orla Project Federal Decree No. 5,300 of December 7, 2004, which regulates Law No. 7,661 of May 16, 1988, establishes the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC) and sets forth rules for land use and occupation in the coastal zone, as well as criteria for the management of the maritime shoreline. In Chapter 4, Section I, Article 22, the decree defines the maritime shoreline as the strip within the coastal zone, of variable width, composed of both a marine and a terrestrial portion, and characterized by the interface between land and sea. The same decree stipulates that the terrestrial boundaries of the shoreline, as previously mentioned in the methodology section of this article, must be delineated from the high tide line or from the outer limits of coastal ecosystems such as beaches, dunes, scarps, cliffs, and rocky shores, among others. Some of these criteria are similar to the definition of "beach" established in § 3, Article 10 of Federal Law No. 7,661 of May 16, 1988, which created the PNGC. According to this definition, a beach is understood as the area periodically covered and uncovered by water, along with the adjacent strip of detrital material—such as sand, gravel, pebbles, and stones—extending up to the point where natural vegetation begins or, in its absence, where another ecosystem starts. However, the municipality of Icapuí does not yet have a shoreline classified as urbanized, which prevented the decentralization of shoreline management through the TAGP (Term of Commitment for Shared Management) in 2017, despite the existence of an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (PGI) since the mid-2000s. The classification of an urbanized shoreline depends directly on the implementation of the municipality’s Participatory Master Plan, which to date is still under development. As a result, the absence of a specific regulatory tool generates uncertainty regarding zoning regulations and territorial planning. Although Icapuí does not yet have a formally recognized urbanized shoreline, the areas studied exhibit urbanized characteristics, particularly due to intense anthropogenic activity and the transformations in the natural landscape that have occurred over recent decades as the municipality has developed. Given this scenario, the present analysis applied protective boundaries based on different shoreline conditions, such as urbanized, non-urbanized, sandy beach, and beach with cliff presence. This approach aims to incorporate both the current legal framework and the physical and socio-economic realities of the municipality. Figure 09 illustrates the map showing the application of land-use limits according to the Orla Project for beaches classified as urbanized, based on the three beaches analyzed and the data presented in this study. The results indicate that at least 258 structures are located within the 50-meter protective buffer zone 169 in Redonda Beach, 65 in Peroba Beach, and 24 in Picos Beach. In contrast, under the current scenario where the shoreline is still classified as a non-urbanized area, at least 724 structures were identified within the 200-meter protective buffer, measured from the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA) inland. These include 473 in Redonda Beach, 134 in Peroba Beach, and 117 in Picos Beach (Figure 10). In both figures, the pink line defines the permissible coastal boundary for current land use. This line represents the present position of the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA), indicating the furthest inland point where constructions could legally exist in compliance with current regulations. It theoretically marks the limit of allowed occupation, assuming full adherence to applicable norms. Among the three beaches analyzed, Redonda Beach has the highest number of structures, both within the 50-meter and the 200-meter protective zones. The greatest concentration of buildings is found particularly near the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA) and along the top of the cliff located in the area. Peroba Beach, although having a lower building density compared to Redonda Beach, faces a critical situation due to an intense and rapidly accelerating erosion process. This phenomenon affects nearly all structures located near the LPMA, making palliative containment measures necessary. Finally, Picos Beach, like the others, contains structures within the established protective buffer zones. However, it shows lower building density and greater spacing between structures, resulting in a less concentrated and more natural occupation pattern compared to the other areas analyzed. Another relevant aspect concerns the straight-line distance between the base of the cliffs and the LPMA, a zone where many of the mapped structures in the study area are concentrated. The results reveal significant variations in the width of this zone, indicating different degrees of vulnerability to coastal erosion and a lack of natural protection for the existing developments within this space. At Redonda Beach, the greatest distance was recorded in the central portion, reaching 154 meters, followed by the western section, with 142 meters. In contrast, the eastern portion shows the shortest distance only 82 meters, indicating a progressive narrowing of the strip between the cliff and the LPMA. This area is particularly vulnerable, as the tide can reach the base and part of the promontory that marks the boundary between Redonda and Peroba Beaches. At Peroba Beach, the central section registers a distance of 122 meters, while the western portion shows 98 meters. However, as one moves eastward, the width of the strip decreases considerably, reaching 98 meters and narrowing further to just 35 meters at the most constricted part of the beach. This scenario highlights the significant impact of erosion in the region. Finally, at Picos Beach, the distances between the base of the cliffs and the LPMA are even shorter compared to the other beaches analyzed. The distance in the central portion is greatest, at 72 meters, the western section is 55 meters, and the eastern portion has extremely reduced distances—32 meters, and even 0 meters in some areas. These values indicate an extremely narrow strip, making the area highly vulnerable to coastal dynamics. The structures located within this narrow strip are squeezed not only by erosive processes resulting from the local beach dynamics but also by the retreat of the cliffs, which already host buildings at the top. This configuration significantly amplifies the risks to existing constructions, as they are exposed to intensifying erosion and potential structural instability over time (Figure 11). The delineation of the 50-meter protective buffer from the top of the cliffs in the area, Figure 12, is based on the criteria established by the Orla Project. The main objective of this buffer is to protect the cliffs by preserving their stability and minimizing the impacts of irregular land use. Additionally, this measure aims to reduce risks to the local population by preventing landslides and other erosive processes that may compromise both the safety of buildings and the well-being of residents. However, it was identified that at least 257 structures are located within this protective buffer zone, distributed as follows: 157 in Redonda Beach, 30 in Peroba Beach, and 70 in Picos Beach. These structures include residences, commercial establishments, and tourism-related infrastructure, reflecting the diverse range of uses along the coastline. As with the other parameters applied under the Orla Project, Redonda Beach shows the highest population density within the established protection zones both along the shoreline and atop the cliffs. It is important to highlight that some of the structures are located directly on the cliff edge, an area of high geological vulnerability. Furthermore, there are constructions built on artificial landfills used to extend the structural base of these buildings. This type of intervention can compromise the area’s stability, increasing the risks associated with erosion and landslides, and calls for urgent attention from the local government. In contrast, Peroba Beach has a lower population density and more widely spaced structures compared to Redonda Beach. In this area, most of the buildings primarily private residences are located away from the most vulnerable zones, resulting in reduced anthropogenic pressure on the protective buffer. However, some structures can still be found along the cliff edge, although in smaller numbers. Despite being less frequent, these constructions pose a risk to both the structural stability of the cliffs and the safety of the buildings and their occupants. Unlike the other areas analyzed and due to the narrow usable strip between the cliff edge and the LPMA, as previously discussed, most of the structures at Picos Beach are concentrated on top of the cliff. This occupation pattern reflects the constraints imposed by the local geography, resulting in significant densification in this area, although in a manner that appears more organically integrated with the landscape compared to the other beaches analyzed. 3.2.2. Application of Occupation Limits According to the Constitution of the State of Ceará (33-Meter Buffer from the LPMA) According to Article 23, Chapter 2, of the Constitution of the State of Ceará, a beach is defined as the area periodically covered and uncovered by maritime, fluvial, or lacustrine waters, along with the adjacent strip of detrital material such as sand, gravel, pebbles, and stones extending to the point where natural vegetation or another ecosystem begins. The Constitution guarantees a free buffer zone, with a minimum width of thirty-three meters, between the LPMA (Mean High Tide Line) and the first public thoroughfare or private property resulting from a subdivision approved by the Municipal Executive and registered with the local Land Registry Office. This concept, however, differs from the one adopted by the federal government for defining “terrenos de marinha” (federal lands with building restrictions), which uses the 1831 Mean High Tide Line as a reference but applies the same 33 m "protective buffer" extent. However, the Constitution does not establish specific guidelines for shoreline retreat due to erosion processes driven by local factors, nor does it account for sea level rise resulting from global climate change. As a result, the delineation of the coastal protection buffer remains based on non-fixed and dynamic references, such as the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA), without considering the natural dynamics of erosion or the impacts of climate change. The absence of clear criteria for adapting to geomorphological changes can lead to significant challenges in territorial management, particularly in areas subject to intense coastal erosion, where buildings and infrastructure may become increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of coastal dynamics. In response to this issue, Figure 13 presents the map showing the application of occupation limits according to the Constitution of the State of Ceará. Based on the analysis of the three beaches and the provisions of the State Constitution, at least 147 structures are currently located within the 33-meter protective buffer (81 in Redonda Beach, 45 in Peroba Beach, and 21 in Picos Beach) that is, within the area between the LPMA and the boundaries established for environmental preservation and orderly coastal land use. These occupations may lead to potential conflicts with current legislation, requiring management and regularization measures to ensure the protection of ecosystems and compliance with territorial planning guidelines. Thus, due to the significant retreat of the shoreline caused by erosion, several sections were observed where the LPMA overlaps with the line of local public roads, making it difficult to comply with the 33-meter safety buffer free of structures between the LPMA and public or private roads in the area. This issue is mitigated at Redonda Beach thanks to redevelopment works and the installation of rock revetments. However, it remains a concern at Peroba Beach and in a section of Picos Beach, which has begun to show signs of erosional processes in recent years. At Picos Beach, some private containment measures have already been implemented in the easternmost portion of the area. 3.2.3. Application of Occupation Limits in Accordance with Municipal Law No. 540/2010 of December 29, 2010, Which Establishes Non-Buildable Areas of Permanent Preservation and Areas of Significant Ecological, Environmental, and Landscape Interest in the Municipality of Icapuí Figure 14 presents the application of occupation limits in Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs) as established by Municipal Law No. 540/2010. During the field survey, a total of 286 structures were identified within the 50-meter buffer zone measured from the base of the cliffs toward the ocean: 197 in Redonda Beach, 65 in Peroba Beach, and 24 in Picos Beach. Additionally, within the 100-meter buffer measured from the top of the cliffs inland, 430 structures were recorded: 274 in Redonda, 52 in Peroba, and 104 in Picos. Redonda Beach has the highest number of structures within both the 50-meter and 100-meter protective buffers, surpassing the other areas analyzed. At Picos Beach, the highest concentration of buildings is found on top of the cliff, likely due to the limited space available at the base, as previously noted. In contrast, at Peroba Beach, the distribution of structures between the two protective zones is more balanced. In addition to these observations, the 33-meter protective buffer established by the Constitution of the State of Ceará was also considered for analysis and comparison purposes. In certain sections, this boundary overlaps with the 50-meter buffer defined by municipal law, primarily due to coastal erosion and the narrow strip between the cliff base and the LPMA. This condition further heightens the vulnerability of the area’s structures, increasing the risks faced by the local population. This scenario is particularly evident at Redonda Beach, especially in its central portion and in the easternmost section. In the rest of the area, however, the impact is mitigated by the presence of the rock revetment on the western side, which controls shoreline advance and prevents retreat toward the cliff. At Peroba Beach, the overlap of protective buffers occurs in more than half of the area analyzed, while at Picos Beach, this phenomenon is observed along nearly the entire extent of the evaluated shoreline. 4. Discussion The results of this study reveal a critical scenario of non-enforcement of legal territorial planning regulations along the coastal zone of Icapuí (CE), particularly on the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos. Field and spatial analyses showed that over 700 structures are located within zones that should be legally protected. This situation highlights not only the weakness of enforcement mechanisms but also the limited institutional capacity to address the conflicts between land occupation and risk, as well as the lack of initiatives aimed at improved planning and territorial management. At Redonda Beach, the highest absolute number of constructions in irregular areas was recorded: 473 within the 200-meter buffer (non-urbanized shoreline scenario) from the LPMA, 169 within the 50-meter buffer (urbanized shoreline scenario), and 157 within the 50-meter zone from the base of the cliff. Additionally, 274 structures are located on top of the escarpment. This multiple overlap of violations reflects not only disordered urban densification but also the ineffectiveness of environmental legislation and enforcement as a real control mechanism. The presence of buildings constructed on artificial landfills at the edge of geologically unstable cliffs indicates that, although the risk is visible and well documented, it is systematically ignored (Braga, 2025). As noted by Clark ( 1996 ), Humphrey et al. ( 2000 ), Oliveira; Nicolodi ( 2012 ), Nicolodi et al. (2021), Cristiano et al. ( 2022 ), and Nicolodi et al. ( 2024 ), the absence of effective territorial management actions even in the presence of well-defined legal frameworks undermines the effectiveness of coastal governance and exposes communities to avoidable risks. At Peroba Beach, although the number of buildings is lower (134 within the 200-meter buffer, 65 within the 50-meter buffer, and 30 on top of the cliffs), the situation is more critical due to the beach's narrow strip, with sections where the distance between the LPMA and the escarpment is only 35 meters. This limited physical configuration increases the exposure of buildings to direct tidal impact and cliff instability. Despite multiple emergency decrees issued by the municipality since 2009—.seven by the time this article was completed—no structural land-use reordering measures have been implemented. The only response observed was the construction of a groin in 2025. A palliative and delayed intervention that clearly illustrates the prevailing logic: legislation is disregarded until the risk materializes, and only then does the public sector respond with containment works. This rationale, driven by reactive investment rather than prevention, reinforces the argument that the absence of legal frameworks makes little practical difference when land-use planning is subject to local economic pressures. Conversely, at the global level, numerous examples of nature-based solutions—such as mangrove restoration, the creation of artificial reefs, and the preservation of foredunes—have proven effective in mitigating the impacts of climate change and protecting vulnerable coastal areas, as highlighted by Borsje et al. ( 2011 ), Van Slobbe et al. ( 2013 ), Cheong et al. ( 2013 ), Spalding et al. ( 2014 ), and Schoonees et al. ( 2019 ). At Picos Beach, the data shows 117 structures within the 200-meter buffer, 24 within the 50-meter buffer from the base of the cliffs, and 70 located on top of the cliffs. Most constructions are concentrated on the plateau, as the distance between the LPMA and the escarpment reaches 0 meters in some locations. This reveals a critical situation: developments compressed between the advancing sea and retreating cliffs, exposed to compounded risks. The lower density of buildings compared to Redonda should not be mistaken for greater safety—on the contrary, the narrow strip between the sea and the cliffs makes the area even more vulnerable. The topographic profiles of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos beaches reveal differences in the relationship between cliffs and beach zones. Redonda features a tall, steep escarpment with successive retreats indicative of strong marine erosion. Peroba shows a gentler slope with greater sediment accumulation at the base, suggesting lower instability. In contrast, Picos has an irregular profile, with steps and depressions linked to localized collapses and rainwater runoff. These morphodynamic variations highlight differing levels of vulnerability to erosion, reinforcing the need for targeted monitoring and land-use planning actions tailored to each local context. A total of 147 structures are located within the 33-meter buffer from the LPMA, as established by the Constitution of the State of Ceará. In many sections, however, this buffer has become impractical due to shoreline retreat: the LPMA now coincides, in several areas, with the boundaries of roads and existing buildings. Since the legislation does not explicitly account for the effects of coastal erosion and the resulting shoreline retreat and/or sea level rise, there is a serious mismatch between the static legal standard and the ever-changing physical reality (Scherer et al., 2013; Schmitz et al., 2023 ). Municipal Law No. 540/2010, enacted in Icapuí, designated the bases and tops of cliffs (50 meters from the base and 100 meters from the top), along with other fragile ecosystems, as permanent preservation areas (APPs), aiming to protect the environment and natural landscapes in accordance with CONAMA Resolution No. 303/2002. Although the law established strict penalties for violations, its enforcement revealed a disconnect between regulation and practice in the face of the unregulated expansion of coastal development. In 2023, Law No. 962/2023 amended the original legislation by allowing existing constructions in consolidated urban areas to remain, aiming to reconcile environmental protection with legal certainty and land tenure regularization, in accordance with the guidelines of the New Forest Code (Law No. 12,651/2012). A total of 286 structures were recorded at the base and 430 at the top of the cliffs, amounting to 716 buildings located in areas theoretically classified as non-buildable. Although this local legislation is clear and technically sound, its effectiveness is undermined by a lack of enforcement capacity, the absence of an active municipal master plan, and the municipality’s rejection from the Beach Management Commitment Agreement (TAGP) in 2017 denied due to the absence of formally recognized "urbanized shorelines." The amendment of Municipal Law No. 540/2010 through Law No. 962/2023 relaxed the protection of sensitive areas in Icapuí such as cliffs and plateau edges by allowing consolidated structures in urban zones. Although aligned with the New Forest Code, this change may increase pressure on fragile environments and encourage new developments, particularly in areas already affected by coastal erosion. The situation is even more critical considering that the area falls within the boundaries of the State Environmental Protection Area (APA) Berçários da Vida Marinha (2022). In light of this, rigorous monitoring will be essential to reconcile urban development with environmental conservation. The comparison among the three beaches reveals distinct yet complementary patterns: Redonda illustrates consolidated densification over fragile structures; Peroba reflects the recent expansion of development in the face of uncontrolled erosion; and Picos represents the extreme use of areas with limited space between cliff and sea. These dynamics suggest that coastal occupation in Icapuí has been driven not by legal boundaries, but by physical availability and a short-term logic, lacking proper risk awareness and the implementation of planned measures for the medium and long term. Table 02 provides a summary comparison of the analyzed beaches, and the results obtained. Table 02 Comparison Between Redonda, Peroba, and Picos Beaches Regarding Occupation, Risk, and Institutional Response in Icapuí (Ceará, Brazil) CRITERIA REDONDA BEACH PEROBA BEACH PICOS BEACH Number of irregular structures 473 (200m from LPMA), 169 (50m from cliff base), 157 (50m urban buffer), 274 (clifftop) 134 (200m), 65 (50m), 30 (clifftop) 117 (200m), 24 (50m), 70 (clifftop) Coastal zone characteristics High and steep cliff with successive retreats (intense marine erosion) Narrow beach strip; cliff close to LPMA (as little as 35m) Extremely narrow strip; cliff coincides with LPMA in some sections Topographic profile Cliff with steps and strong erosional retreat Gentle slope with greater sediment cover at the base Irregular profile with steps and collapses from runoff Level of vulnerability High, due to dense occupation over unstable structures Very high, due to erosion, narrow strip, and lack of measures Extreme, due to compression between sea and cliff, compounded risks Institutional response Lack of effective land-use planning; buildings on unstable landfills Palliative structure (groin in 2025); no preventive planning No institutional action recorded Legislation effectiveness Practically nonexistent; multiple overlapping violations LPMA disregarded; no reordering despite emergency decrees Legal protection zone physically inapplicable Summary of occupation pattern Consolidated and unregulated densification Recent occupation in face of erosion Extreme use of space compressed between sea and cliff Overall conclusion Ineffective governance, ignored legislation, systematically neglected risk Occupation expands without planning; legislation ignored until risks emerge Critical situation, high risk, no action despite worsening conditions Source: Prepared by the authors based on field data and spatial analysis. Given this scenario, environmental legislation exists but is not enforced whether due to the lack of local capacity (e.g., physical infrastructure, workforce, or technical training) or because of economic pressures that shape the territory in defiance of established regulations. Cliff erosion, shoreline retreat, and geomorphological collapses are well-known and documented phenomena, yet institutional responses remain sporadic, palliative, and reactively occurring after events have already taken place. As summarized by Scherer ( 2013 ), Santos et al. ( 2019 ), Scherer et al. (2020), and Santos et al. (2020), the issue is not the absence of legal frameworks, but rather the disconnect between public policy, technical management, and social participation. Overcoming this situation requires more than the creation of new legal frameworks—it demands that existing ones be updated, integrated, enforced, and supported by structural measures. Coastal governance must move beyond a reactive stance and adopt a preventive approach grounded in science, planning, and territorial justice. Redonda, Peroba, and Picos are no exceptions; they are symptomatic of an outdated and evidently collapsing model of coastal occupation. In light of this, it becomes evident that public policies targeting the coastal zone must be more effectively integrated with science, governance, and social participation. It is necessary to break away from the fragmented model of decision-making and establish strategies grounded in evidence. A promising example of this integration is the Cientista Chefe Program, coordinated by the Ceará Foundation for Scientific and Technological Development Support (FUNCAP), which connects researchers directly with public administration to develop innovative solutions tailored to the realities of state services. In the context of coastal management, this model presents a concrete opportunity to transform reliable technical knowledge into structural actions, enhancing public policies and strengthening local institutional capacity. In the state of Ceará, recent policies—many of them driven by the Cientista Chefe Program—have sought to consolidate this new paradigm of integration between science and public administration. Decree No. 35,071, dated December 21, 2022, establishes guidelines for contingency actions in response to incidents and/or emergency situations, including coastal erosion, providing a regulatory framework for immediate intervention in vulnerable areas. Complementarily, Law No. 18,298 of December 27, 2022, established the State Policy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Resources (PERM), representing a comprehensive legal framework to guide the integrated management of marine and coastal resources. The policy focuses on sustainability, biodiversity conservation, and the rational use of maritime territory. Among its provisions, Article 6 stands out by assigning to the Executive Branch the responsibility of promoting and strengthening a productive, technological, and scientific arrangement in the state of Ceará, with particular emphasis on the continuous monitoring of various activities. By establishing systematic monitoring as a key element, the policy reinforces the strategic role of science and data generation in the planning and evaluation of coastal public policies, highlighting the importance of tools that integrate innovation, territorial management, and sustainability. Complementing these initiatives, the Coastal and Marine Atlas of Ceará , launched in 2023, provides a robust technical-scientific foundation for marine and coastal spatial planning and management. It compiles integrated data on biodiversity, land use, ocean dynamics, vulnerable areas, and overlapping uses. This cartographic and analytical tool is essential for guiding public policies on spatial planning, supporting technical decision-making with concrete, evidence-based information. Therefore, the findings presented in this article demonstrate that the integration of science, policy, and social participation must be expanded and strengthened. Only with this coordinated foundation will it be possible to promote effective, preventive, and equitable coastal management—one that ensures environmental preservation, safeguards coastal populations, and supports the sustainable development of Ceará’s shoreline. 5. Conclusion Coastal management in Brazil has made progress through the establishment of a robust set of legal frameworks and public policies. However, it still faces persistent challenges, such as the lack of coordination among federal, state, and municipal levels of government, regional disparities in implementation capacity, and largely ineffective environmental enforcement. These factors undermine the effectiveness of regulations, especially in fragile contexts such as the municipality of Icapuí (CE), where coastal erosion and irregular land occupation intensify socio-environmental risks and expose structural weaknesses in territorial governance. The data presented in this study demonstrate that unregulated occupation of protective buffer zones, both at the base and atop the cliffs, intensifies the effects of erosion, compromises resident safety, and places additional pressure on local infrastructure. Despite the existence of specific legislation at the federal, state, and municipal levels, the lack of preventive measures and effective enforcement has allowed the continued expansion of construction in high-risk areas. The public sector’s inaction in the face of a well-documented situation underscores the urgent need for structural responses. In this regard, the effective management of a Sustainable Use Conservation Unit in the study area could represent a strategic approach to promote territorial planning, provided it is aligned with public policies focused on redevelopment, enforcement, and social participation. The integration of science, governance, and the local community is essential to transform this legal instrument into a concrete tool for planning and environmental preservation. A more integrated approach to coastal management therefore requires a revision of current governance models, with an emphasis on multiscale coordination, community engagement, and the adoption of tools such as the Coastal Zone Ecological-Economic Zoning (ZEEC), environmental restoration, and continuous shoreline monitoring. The Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) presents a strategic window of opportunity to enhance coastal management in Brazil. Fully seizing this opportunity demands not only new investments but, above all, strong political and institutional commitment to sustainability and the safety of coastal communities. Declarations Funding Declaration This research was supported by the Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil. The funding agencies had no role in the design of the study, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations ‘Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable’ Author Contribution ELB conceived and designed the research framework, coordinated the study, conducted field surveys, integrated geospatial and legal data, compiled, systematized, and analyzed federal, state, and municipal legal instruments, prepared all figures and tables, and led the writing of the main manuscript text. MML, YGV, and WBR conducted field surveys, integrated geospatial data, processed UAV imagery and GNSS-RTK datasets, and performed GIS-based spatial modeling. DPP contributed to the interpretation of results, development of policy recommendations, and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors contributed to data interpretation, reviewed the text for intellectual content, and approved the final version. References Albuquerque, M., Espinoza, J., Teixeira, P., de Oliveira, A., Corrêa, I., Calliari, L., 2013. Erosion or Coastal Variability: An Evaluation of the DSAS and the Change Polygon Methods for the Determination of Erosive Processes on Sandy Beaches. J. Coast. Res. 29, 1710–1714. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26491036. Andrés, M., Barragán, J.M., Scherer, M., 2018. Urban centres and coastal zone definition: Which area should we manage? Land Use Policy 71, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.038. Andrew, N.L., Bright, P., De la Rua, L., Teoh, S.J., Vickers, M., 2019. Coastal proximity of populations in 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories. PLoS One 14, e0223249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223249. Asmus, M.L., Nicolodi, J., Scherer, M.E.G., Gianuca, K., Costa, J.C., Goersch, L., Villwock, A., 2018. Simples para ser útil: base ecossistêmica para o gerenciamento costeiro. Desenv. Meio Ambient. 44. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v44i0.5497. Asmus, M.L., Nicolodi, J., Anello, L.S., Gianuca, K., 2019. The risk to lose ecosystem services due to climate change: A South American case. Ecol. Eng. 130, 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.12.030. Baía, L.B., Ranieri, L.A., Rosário, R.P., 2021. Análise multitemporal da variação da linha de costa em praias estuarinas de macromaré na Amazônia Oriental. Geociências 40, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.5016/geociencias.v40i1.13470. Baptista, P., Cunha, T., Bernardes, C., Gama, C., Ferreira, O., Dias, A., 2011. A precise and efficient methodology to analyse the shoreline displacement rate. J. Coast. Res. 27, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.2112/09-1187.1. Barbier, E.B., 2015. Climate change impacts rural poverty in low-elevation coastal zones. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 165, A1–A13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.05.035. Rodrigues, W. B. 2025. Transformações na paisagem das falésias de Icapuí: pressões do turismo e da expansão imobiliária (Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso, Universidade Estadual do Ceará). Universidade Estadual do Ceará. http://siduece.uece.br/siduece/trabalhoAcademicoPublico.jsf?id=118020 Boak, E.H., Turner, I.L., 2005. Shoreline definition and detection: a review. J. Coast. Res. 21, 688–703. https://doi.org/10.2112/03-0071.1. Borsje, B.W., van Wesenbeeck, B.K., Dekker, F., Paalvast, P., Bouma, T.J., van Katwijk, M.M., de Vries, M.B., 2011. How ecological engineering can serve coastal protection. Ecol. Eng. 37, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.027. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Pittfield, T., Jeitner, C., 2016. Perceptions of climate change, sea level rise, and possible consequences relate mainly to self-valuation of science knowledge. Energy Power Eng. 8, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2016.85024. Carvalho, A.M., Maia, L.P., Dominguez, J.M.L., 2007. A deriva e o transporte litorâneo de sedimentos no trecho entre Cumbuco e Matões–costa noroeste do estado do Ceará. Arq. Cienc. Mar. 40, 43–51. http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/53889 Ceará, Superintendência Estadual do Meio Ambiente, 2016. Reestruturação e atualização do mapeamento do projeto Zoneamento Ecológico-Econômico do Ceará – zona costeira e unidades de conservação costeiras. Relatório final de caracterização ambiental e dos mapeamentos. SEMACE, Fortaleza. https://www.semace.ce.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2016/12/RELATÓRIO-MAPEAMENTO-CAPACIDADE-DE-SUPORTE.pdf Chacanza, M.S., Almeida, N.M., Freire, G.S.S., Silva Neto, C. Â., Abreu Neto, J.C., Jalane, O.I., 2022. Análise da variação da linha de costa no trecho entre as praias de Peroba e Redonda no município de Icapuí-Ceará, Brasil, a partir de imagens de satélite aplicando o DSAS. Geociências 41, 377–396. https://doi.org/10.5016/geociencias.v41i04.16718. Chacanza, M.S., Almeida, N.M. de, Freire, G.S.S., Neto, C. Ângelo da S., Medeiros, M.E.M., Freires, E.V., Silva, M.T. da, 2024. Vulnerabilidade costeira no trecho entre as praias de Peroba e Redonda no município de Icapuí-Ceará, Brasil: Coastal vulnerability in the stretch between beaches of Peroba and Redonda in the municipality of Icapuí-Ceará, Brazil. Rev. Geociências do Nordeste 10, 414–425. https://doi.org/10.21680/2447-3359.2024v10n1ID31738. Cheong, S.M., Silliman, B., Wong, P.P., Van Wesenbeeck, B., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., 2013. Coastal adaptation with ecological engineering. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 787–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1854. Clark, J.R. (Ed.), 1996. Coastal zone management handbook. CRC Press. Cooper, J.A.G., Masselink, G., Coco, G., Short, A.D., Castelle, B., Rogers, K., Jackson, D.W., 2020. Sandy beaches can survive sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 993–995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00934-2. Correa, I.C.S., 2024. Mudanças climáticas: impacto, mitigação e adaptação. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/272398 Cristiano, S.C., Pfuetzenreuter, A., Lima, F.A. da.V., Sardinha, G.D., Nicolodi, J.L., Camargo, J.M., Fischer, L.O., Mattos, M.P. de S., Scherer, M., Teixeira, M. de M., Costa, M.F., Corraini, N., Gonçalves, R.K., Kerber, I.K.G., Souza, V., Da Silva, B.V., 2022. Municipalização da gestão de praias marítimas brasileiras. In: Souto, R.D. (Ed.), Gestão ambiental e sustentabilidade em áreas costeiras e marinhas: conceitos e práticas, vol. 2. Zenodo, Rio de Janeiro, 533–563. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6679063 Crowell, M., Leatherman, S.P., Buckley, M.K., 1991. Historical shoreline change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. J. Coast. Res. 7, 839–852. De Gouveia Souza, C.R., 2009. A erosão costeira e os desafios da gestão costeira no Brasil. Rev. Gestão Costeira Integr. 9, 17–37. De Oliveira, M.R.L., Nicolodi, J.L., 2012. A gestão costeira no Brasil e os dez anos do Projeto Orla. Uma análise sob a ótica do poder público. Rev. Gestão Costeira Integr. 12, 91–100. Dewez, T.J.B., Leroux, J., Morelli, S., 2016. Cliff collapse hazard from repeated multicopter UAV acquisitions: return on experience. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XLI-B5, 805–811. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B5-805-2016. Humphrey, S., Burbridge, P., Blatch, C., 2000. US lessons for coastal management in the European Union. Mar. Policy 24, 275–286. Khakhim, N., Kurniawan, A., Pranowo, W.S., Khasanah, E.U., Halilintar, P., 2024. Shoreline morphological change prognostic model based on spatiotemporal framework imagery data on the Northern Coast of Java, Indonesia. Kuwait J. Sci. 51 (4): 100274. ISSN 23074108. https://ir.lib.ugm.ac.id/id/eprint/10681 Lacerda Barros, E., 2018. Erosão costeira no litoral do município de Icapuí-CE na última década: causas, consequências e perspectivas futuras. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Marinhas Tropicais), Instituto de Ciências do Mar, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza. Lacerda Barros, E.., Morais, J.O., Pinheiro, L. de S., 2020. Análise dos Indicadores do Processo Erosivo no Litoral do Município de Icapuí, Ceará, Nordeste do Brasil. REDE: Revista Eletrônica do Prodema, 14(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.22411/rede2020.1401.05 Lacerda Barros, E., Paula, D.P., Guerra, R.G.P., Santos, J.O., 2021. Erosion and coastal structures in Brazilian metropolises: The case of Fortaleza and its inequalities. In: Singh, R.B., et al. (Eds.), Practices in Regional Science and Sustainable Regional Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2221-2_6. Lacerda Barros, E., Pinheiro, L. de S., Guerra, R.G.P., Moura, F.J.M. de, Paula, D.P. de, Neto, A.R.X., Leisner, M.M., Morais, J.O. de, 2024a. Shoreline change and coastal erosion: An analysis of long and short-term alterations and mitigation strategies on the coast of Icapuí, Northeast Brazil. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 25, 4. https://doi.org/10.20502/rbg.v25i4.2604.`` Lacerda Barros, E., Oliveira, M.M.N. de, Neto, A.X., Guerra, R.P.G., Moura, F.JM. de, Moura, F.M. de, Morais, J.O. de, Pinheiro, L., 2024b. Sedimentological patterns of the beach-inner continental shelf system of Icapuí, CE (NE-Brazil). Rev. Geociênc. Nord. 10, 2, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.21680/2447-3359.2024v10n2ID32257. Lawrence, J., Bell, R., Blackett, P., Stephens, S., Allan, S., 2018. National guidance for adapting to coastal hazards and sea-level rise: Anticipating change, when and how to change pathway. Environ. Sci. Policy 82, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.012 Leatherman, S.P., 2003. Shoreline change mapping and management along the U.S. East Coast. J. Coast. Res. 38, 5–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25736596 Leisner et al., (2024). UAV remote sensing applications in beach-cliff system monitoring of morphodynamic processes. Mercator, Fortaleza. v.23, p. e23025. https://doi.org/10.4215/rm2024.e23025. Leisner, M.M., de Paula, D.P., Alves, D.C.L., da Guia Albuquerque, M., de Holanda Bastos, F., Vasconcelos, Y.G., 2023. Long‐term and short‐term analysis of shoreline change and cliff retreat on Brazilian equatorial coast. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 48, 14, 2987–3002. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5668. Leite, L.H.J., Almeida, N.A., 2023. Análise espaço-temporal e modelagem preditiva da linha de costa do estado do Ceará. Geociências 42, 3, 419–436. https://doi.org/10.5016/geociencias.v42i3.17799. Lima, J.C., Lima, R.J.R., Barros, E.L., Paula, D.P. de, 2019. Análise multitemporal da variabilidade da linha de costa do litoral do município de Caucaia, Ceará, Brasil. Rev. Casa Geogr. Sobral (RCGS) 21, 2, 864–884. https://doi.org/10.35701/rcgs.v21n2.542. Lv, Y., Li, W., Wen, J., Xu, H., Du, S., 2021. Population pattern and exposure under sea level rise: low elevation coastal zone in the Yangtze River Delta, 1990–2100. Climate Risk Manag. 33, 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100348 Loizidou, X.I., Orthodoxou, D.L., Loizides, I.M., Petsa, D., Anzidei, M., 2024. Adapting to sea level rise: Participatory, solution-oriented policy tools in vulnerable Mediterranean areas. Environ. Syst. Decis. 44, 1, 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09910-5 Luijendijk, A., Hagenaar, G., Ranasinghe, R., Baart, F., Donchyts, G., Aarninkhof, S., 2018. The State of the World’s Beaches. Sci. Rep. 8, 6641. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24630-6. Machado, B.A., da Rocha, T.B., Fernandez, G.B., de Oliveira Filho, S.R., 2024. Dinâmica da linha de costa no flanco meridional do delta do rio Paraíba do Sul entre 1954-2018: considerações sobre o fenômeno da erosão costeira em Atafona (RJ) e diferentes métodos de análise. Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia, 25(1). Maia, L.P., 1998. Processo costeros y balance sedimentario ao lo largo de Fortaleza (NE-BRASIL): implicaciones para uma gestión adecuada de la zona litoral. Tese de Doutorado, Programa Doctorado de Ciencias del Mar, Departamento d'Estratigrafia i Paleontologia, Universitat de Barcelona, 269 p. Marengo, J.A., Alves, L.M., Alvala, R., Cunha, A.P., Brito, S., Moraes, O.L., 2017. Climatic characteristics of the 2010-2016 drought in the semiarid Northeast Brazil region. Anais da Acad. Bras. Ciências 90, 1973–1985. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720170206. McMichael, C., Dasgupta, S., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Kelman, I., 2020. A review of estimating population exposure to sea-level rise and the relevance for migration. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb398. Meireles, A.J.A., 1991. Mapeamento geológico/geomorfológico da planície costeira de Icapuí, extremo leste do Estado do Ceará. Diss. Mestrado, Centro de Tecnologia, Departamento de Geologia da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Recife, 178 p. il. Meireles, A.J.A., Santos, A.M.F., 2011. Evolução geomorfológica da planície costeira de Icapuí, extremo leste do Ceará, Nordeste do Brasil. Geografia (Rio Claro. Impresso) 36, 519–534. Meireles, A.J.A., Lima, W.F., Silva, A.P., 2016. Atlas socioambiental: cartografia social das comunidades de Icapuí. 1. ed. Fortaleza, CE: Editora Fundação Brasil Cidadão. Mendonça, F.J.B., Gonçalves, R.M., Awange, J., Silva, L.M.D., Gregório, M.D.N., 2014. Temporal shoreline series analysis using GNSS. Boletim de Ciências Geodésicas, 20, 701–719. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1982-21702014000300040. Morais, J.O.D., 1981. Evolução sedimentológica da enseada de Mucuripe (Fortaleza-Ceará–Brasil). Arquivos de Ciências do Mar , 21(1), 19-46. Morais, J.O., Freire, G.S.S., Pinheiro, L.S., Souza, M.J., Carvalho, A.M., Pessoa, P.R.S., Oliveira, S.H.M., 2006. Ceará: atlas de erosão. In: Muehe, D., (Org.), Erosão e progradação do litoral brasileiro . Brasília: MMA, pp. 476. Morais, J.O., Pinheiro, L.S., 2011. The effect of semi-aridity and damming on sedimentary dynamics in estuaries—Northeastern region of Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research , 64, 805-808. Morais, J.O., Pinheiro, L., Pessoa, P.R.S., Freire, G.S., Carvalho, A.M.D.E., Guerra, R.G.P., Lacerda Barros, E., Moura, F.J.M., 2018. Ceará. In: Muehe, D., (Org.), Panorama da Erosão Costeira no Brasil , vol. 1, pp. 261–289. Brasília: MMA. Moreira, T.F., Albuquerque, M. da G., Espinoza, J.M. de A., de Paula, D.P., Leal Alves, D.C., Barros, E.L., da Conceição, T.F., 2020. Estudo do Comportamento da Linha de Costa na Praia do Icaraí (Caucaia, Ceará), a partir dos Métodos Digital Shoreline Analysis System e do Polígono de Mudança. Rev. Bras. Geogr. Fís. 13(07), 3395–3411. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v13.07.p3395-3411. Morton, R.A., Miller, T., Moore, L., 2005. Historical shoreline changes along the US Gulf of Mexico: A summary of recent shoreline comparisons and analyses. J. Coast. Res. 21(4), 704–709. https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0230.1. Muehe, D., 2001. Critérios morfodinâmicos para o estabelecimento de limites da orla costeira para fins de gerenciamento. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 2(1). Muehe, D., Klumb-Oliveira, L., 2014. Deslocamento da linha de costa versus mobilidade praial. Quatern. Environ. Geosci. 5(2). https://doi.org/10.20396/sbgfa.v1i2017.2356 Nascimento, E.A.N., Andrade, A.C. da S., 2024. Dinâmica tempo-espacial da linha de costa associada a delta de maré vazante, Cacha Pregos e Ponta dos Garcez, Bahia, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 25(1). https://doi.org/10.20502/rbgeomorfologia.v25i1.2447 Nicolodi, J.L., Petermann, R.M., 2010. Mudanças Climáticas e a Vulnerabilidade da Zona Costeira do Brasil: Aspectos ambientais, sociais e tecnológicos. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada-Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 10(2), 151–177. Nicolodi, J.L., Asmus, M.L., Polette, M., Turra, A., Seifert Jr, C.A., Stori, F.T., ... & Gonçalves, R.K., 2021. Critical gaps in the implementation of Coastal Ecological and Economic Zoning persist after 30 years of the Brazilian coastal management policy. Marine Policy, 128, 104470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104470 Nicolodi, J.L., Cristiano, S., Schmitz, C., Silva, P., Conceição, G., Santos, A., 2024. O Projeto de Gestão Integrada da Orla Marítima (Projeto Orla) no Brasil. https://doi.org/10.48209/978-65-5417-404-2. Oliveira, M.R.L., Nicolodi, J.L., 2012. A Gestão Costeira no Brasil e os dez anos do Projeto Orla. Uma análise sob a ótica do poder público. Rev. Gestão Costeira Integrada 12(1), 91-100. Pang, T., Wang, X., Nawaz, R.A., Keefe, G., Adekanmbi, T., 2023. Coastal erosion and climate change: A review on coastal-change process and modeling. Ambio 52, 2034–2052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01901-9. Paula, D. P. D., Dias, J. M. A., Ferreira, Ó., & Morais, J. O. (2013). High-rise development of the sea-front at Fortaleza (Brazil): Perspectives on its valuation and consequences. Ocean & coastal management, 77, 14-23. Paula, D. P. (2015). Erosão costeira e estruturas de proteção no litoral da região metropolitana de Fortaleza (Ceará, Brasil). REDE - Revista Eletrônica do PRODEMA, Fortaleza, v.9, n. 1, dez. ISSN 1982-5528. http://www.revistarede.ufc.br/rede/article/view/306 Paula, D. P., Lima, J. C., Barros, E. L., & Santos, J. D. O. (2021). Coastal erosion and tourism: the case of the distribution of tourist accommodations and their daily rates. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 14(3), 110-120. Paula, D.P., Vasconcelos, Y., Sousa, F., 2022. Effects of beach width variability on recreational function: A case study on NE Brazil. Regional Studies in Marine Sciences 51, 102182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2022.102182. Pinheiro, L.S., Morais, J.O., Maia, L.P., 2016. The Beaches of Ceará. In: Short, A.D., Klein, A.H.F. (Eds.), Brazilian Beach Systems. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 1, 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30394-9_2. Quang, D.N., Ngan, V.H., Tam, H.S., Viet, N.T., Tinh, N.X., Tanaka, H., 2021. Long-Term Shoreline Evolution Using DSAS Technique: A Case Study of Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101124 Rangel-Buitrago, N., Anfuso, G., Williams, A.T., 2015. Coastal erosion along the Caribbean coast of Colombia: Magnitudes, causes and management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 114, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.024 dos Santos, C.R., M. Polette & R. Stanziola Vieira. 2019. Gestão e Governança Costeira no Brasil: O Papel Do Grupo de Integração do Gerenciamento Costeiro (Gi-Gerco) e Sua Relação com O Plano de Ação Federal (PAF) de Gestão da Zona Costeira. Revista Costas, 1(2): 135-162. doi: 10.26359/costas.0208 Santos, C.R., Polette, M., Pinto, A.C., Turra, A., Mazzer, A., Diegues, A.C.S., ... & da Silva, V.S., 2020. A Gestão Costeira Integrada no Brasil: Histórico, Processos e Desafios. Itajaí, SC: Editora Univali, 2022. Scherer, M., Sanches, M., Negreiros, D.H.D., 2010. Gestão das zonas costeiras e as políticas públicas no Brasil: um diagnóstico. In: Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio. Red IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz, pp. 291–336. Scherer, M., 2013. Gestão de praias no Brasil: subsídios para uma reflexão. Rev. Gestão Costeira Integrada-J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 13, 3–13. Scherer, M.E.G., T.S. Silva, M.L. Amsus, N.S. Gruber, R. Pinto de Lima, & M. Filet. 2020. Avaliação do Desenvolvimento do Sistema de Governança Pública Costeira Brasileira – 2009 a 2018. Revista Costas vol esp., 1: 23-42. doi: 10.26359/costas.e102 Schmitz, C.M., Nicolodi, J.L., Gruber, N.L.S., 2023. Terrenos de marinha no Brasil: conceitos e evolução histórica no contexto do gerenciamento costeiro integrado. Rev. Dep. Geogr. 43, e190816–e190816. https://doi.org/10.11606/eISSN.2236-2878.rdg.2023.190816 Schoonees, T., Gijón Mancheño, A., Scheres, B., Bouma, T.J., Silva, R., Schlurmann, T., Schüttrumpf, H., 2019. Hard structures for coastal protection, towards greener designs. Estuaries and Coasts 42, 1709–1729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00551-z Seto, K.C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., Reilly, M.K., 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion. PLoS ONE 6, e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777. Small, C., Nicholls, R.J., 2003. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research 19, 584–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/4299200. Smith, K., 2011. We are seven billion. Nature Climate Change 1, 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1235. Soares, M.D.O., Campos, C.C., Carneiro, P.B.M., Barroso, H.S., Marins, R.V., Teixeira, C.E.P., Menezes, M.O.D., Pinheiro, L.S., Viana, M.B., Feitosa, C.V., Sánchez-Botero, J.I., Bezerra, L.E.A., Rocha-Barreira, C.A., Matthews-Cascon, H., Matos, F.O., Gorayeb, A., Cavalcante, M.S., Moro, M.F., Rossi, S., Belmonte, G., Melo, V.M.M., Rosado, A.S., Ramires, G., Tavares, T.C.L., Garcia, T.M., 2021. Challenges and perspectives for the Brazilian semi-arid coast under global environmental changes. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.001 Spalding, M., McIvor, A., Tonneijck, F.H., Tol, S., van Eijk, P., 2014. Mangroves for Coastal Defence. Guidelines for Coastal Managers & Policy Makers. Wageningen: Wetlands International, 42 p. Van Slobbe, E., de Vriend, H.J., Aarninkhof, S., Lulofs, K., de Vries, M., Dircke, P., 2013. Building with Nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Nat. Hazards 66, 1461–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0552-4. Vasconcelos, S.C., Ramos, I.A., Nunes, R.S., Santos, R.A., Figueiredo Jr, A.G., 2021. Dinâmica erosiva e progradacional das praias de Atafona e Grussaí (RJ), 1954-2019. Rev. ANPEGE 17(33), 162–182. https://doi.org/10.5418/ra2021.v17i33.11946 Vasconcelos, Y.G., Paula, D.P., Ferreira, O., Leisner, M.M., 2024. Contrasting short-term coastline behaviour after the construction of sinusoidal groins in NE Brazil. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 136, 104832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2024.104832 Vousdoukas, M.I., Ranasinghe, R., Mentaschi, L., et al., 2020. Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 260–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0697-0 Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M., 2012. ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021 Williams, A.T., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Pranzini, E., Anfuso, G., 2018. The management of coastal erosion. Ocean & Coastal Management 156, 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.022 Ximenes Neto, A.R., Lacerda Barros, E., Filho, R.P.L., Brindeiro, F.O.S., Paula, D.P., Morais, J.O., Pinheiro, L., 2024a. Late Holocene progradation in a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate beach ridges system, Northeast Brazil. Regional Studies in Marine Science 69, 103295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103295. Ximenes Neto, A.R., Pinheiro, L. de S., Almeida, N.M., Morais, J.O., Moura, F.J.M., Pessoa, P.R.S., Silva Filho, W.F., Carvalho, A.M., Soares, R.C., Lima, R.M., Filho, R.P.L., Barros, E.L., Marques, E.S., 2024b. Geologia e geomorfologia costeira e marinha (versão estendida). In: Lacerda Barros, E., Ximenes Neto, A., Paula, D.P.P., Matos, F.O., Andrade, L., Bezerra, L.E.A., Menezes, M.O., Albuquerque, M.G., Sousa, P.H., Cavalcante, R.M., Rossi, S., Montalverne, T.C.F. (Eds.), Atlas Costeiro e Marinho do Estado do Ceará 2023 (versão estendida). 1st ed. Federação das Indústrias do Ceará (FIEC), Fortaleza, v. 1, p. 1-1. ISBN 978-65-01-0624. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SuplementaryMaterial.xlsx GraphicalAbstract.jpg Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7368390","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":502207918,"identity":"725f4fd3-1010-4018-8141-278997288840","order_by":0,"name":"Eduardo Lacerda Barros","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Ceará","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eduardo","middleName":"Lacerda","lastName":"Barros","suffix":""},{"id":502207921,"identity":"fcd8ff39-15db-48a5-83d7-75d63bcca479","order_by":1,"name":"Melvin Moura Leisner","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Ceará","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melvin","middleName":"Moura","lastName":"Leisner","suffix":""},{"id":502207922,"identity":"b5475cf1-f94b-45a0-9105-7658bd7be1a5","order_by":2,"name":"Yan Gurgel Vasconcelos","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Ceará","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yan","middleName":"Gurgel","lastName":"Vasconcelos","suffix":""},{"id":502207925,"identity":"09134244-9e4f-4da5-b04c-b133dc04378e","order_by":3,"name":"Weslyane Braga Rodrigues","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Ceará","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Weslyane","middleName":"Braga","lastName":"Rodrigues","suffix":""},{"id":502207929,"identity":"e3da122a-a6b3-4479-9dbb-0ac35deba3b5","order_by":4,"name":"Davis Pereira de Paula","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Ceará","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Davis","middleName":"Pereira","lastName":"de Paula","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-13 23:08:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7368390/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7368390/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89828519,"identity":"90fd4168-856e-480d-93dd-0ae085f94836","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 13:05:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":803366,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of the study area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/cc26c1f7958bd9ca421180af.png"},{"id":89826874,"identity":"d02afbb9-5093-4255-bbbf-b55de720c180","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:01","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":157421,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethodological flowchart applied in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/75d7339572cbb6c249a467af.png"},{"id":89826871,"identity":"ea0fdf5d-79d6-4bfe-9016-783ddc18e949","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:01","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":164498,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApplication of Territorial Management Tools for Environmental Protection, Following Federal, State, and Municipal Guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: adapted from Muehe (2001).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/139021eb7ff5c671c469bcc5.png"},{"id":89826880,"identity":"446f4304-7176-49db-ab1a-c6a02c93bcce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":129063,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegal milestones applicable to the Brazilian coastal zone (1831–2024). A) Annual distribution of relevant legal tools. B) Aggregate distribution by decade, highlighting periods of increased regulatory production focused on coastal management.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Federal Government, Government of the State of Ceará, and Municipality of Icapuí.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/20ad5214447c402bdf23ce14.png"},{"id":89828076,"identity":"9ce67f6a-3b0e-4309-8477-aca909aff2e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:02","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1155282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeneral overview of land use and environmental features at Redonda Beach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/c9443cd23a6a23dd2ac7e1f8.png"},{"id":89826886,"identity":"74e8b454-40bb-42c6-9484-03801dea4d7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:02","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1285121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeneral overview of land use and environmental features at Peroba Beach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/d3607d3e443b65d6c2cc0c4d.png"},{"id":89828073,"identity":"d3f8920a-0120-4f73-83a5-8446f0e4598d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:02","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1193741,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeneral overview of land use and environmental features at Peroba Beach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/2b67d2ed78ea925fbb2525b8.png"},{"id":89826879,"identity":"9b04b887-ff81-4238-8d1d-73f3f0dbfc34","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:01","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":218817,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDigital Terrain Model (DTM) for the analyzed beaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/6ad2f371f2a1b942a2e46a67.png"},{"id":89826882,"identity":"6f1914c4-559a-4e21-a250-e65e02ac5bfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":340223,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApplication of Occupation Limits According to the Orla Project for Urbanized Shoreline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/ba8f0a860627cee05e8dacfb.jpeg"},{"id":89828081,"identity":"47bfe7be-7391-4617-b97d-4a36f112e5d9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1041039,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApplication of Occupation Limits According to the Orla Project for Non-Urbanized Shoreline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage10.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/32fa915c8dca3913de79282b.jpeg"},{"id":89826888,"identity":"4fa3e2e3-1b7a-405e-a74e-8ef839fbba97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:02","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1311112,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStraight-line distances measured between the base of the cliffs and the Current Mean High Tide Line (LPMA).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/e6606ec2800487e80d35efbd.png"},{"id":89828075,"identity":"9055e5ab-b600-42d2-8312-bb4a0c66095e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":352412,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApplication of Occupation Limits According to the Orla Project: In Areas with Sedimentary Cliffs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage12.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/88474536f37ad3cf914d0d3a.jpeg"},{"id":89826906,"identity":"e33ac915-e759-4f34-9ad1-8b2a4a1757fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:49:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":330282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApplication of Occupation Limits According to the Constitution of the State of Ceará.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage13.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/dee6d91c476f7736249346e2.jpeg"},{"id":89828077,"identity":"05ec98a9-89d5-4522-bfa2-e2742ba814ac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":370460,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApplication of Occupation Limits for Areas in Accordance with Municipal Law No. 540/2010, of December 29, 2010.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage14.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/eab1c4d507f51ef97ed9c3ea.jpeg"},{"id":89829538,"identity":"54ebf7bd-2e95-43f2-9f33-0ad703fdcfff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 13:13:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":10493031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/409db64e-76b2-410d-8660-f2d3b9a2df86.pdf"},{"id":89828069,"identity":"ef20612e-0b46-450f-baaf-8e869fa276f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:01","extension":"xlsx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":35571,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SuplementaryMaterial.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/e5c0250b3332afe7cbd1f79c.xlsx"},{"id":89828071,"identity":"dc778990-becc-43d4-b868-65c91848fa68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 12:57:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":385876,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"GraphicalAbstract.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7368390/v1/44a27ee382b00a1ec7f7b604.jpg"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"On the fringes of the law? Territorial Management and Legal Conflicts in Vulnerable Coastal Environments in Northeast Brazil","fulltext":[{"header":"Highlights","content":"\u003col style=\"list-style-type: upper-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOver 700 buildings were identified within legally protected coastal areas in Icapu\u0026iacute; (Brazil), revealing widespread non-compliance with environmental legislation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDespite the existence of at least 168 legal instruments in Brazil, Cear\u0026aacute; and Icapu\u0026iacute; (1831\u0026ndash;2024), enforcement of territorial planning in high-risk beach-cliff systems remains ineffective.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe study applies a GIS-based approach combining UAV imagery, topographic surveys, and legal zoning buffers to assess land use conflicts.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLocal and state legislation, including CONAMA Resolution 303/2002 and Municipal Law No. 540/2010, are systematically disregarded in practice.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFindings underscore the need for integrated coastal governance, preventive planning, and nature-based solutions aligned with legal enforcement.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCoastal erosion is a phenomenon widely observed in various coastal regions around the world, especially in the state of Cear\u0026aacute;, located in northeastern Brazil. This process has intensified due to a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors. In the global context, sea level rise driven by climate change, together with the increased frequency and intensity of storms, are the main drivers of accelerated erosion processes in coastal areas (Luijendijk et al. 2018; Vousdoukas et al. 2020; Cooper et al. 2020; Soares et al. 2021; Pang et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe natural dynamics of beaches in Northeast Brazil are under increasing pressure due to the activities of various economic sectors, such as real estate, tourism, industry, and ports. Factors such as disorderly occupation of coastal areas, population growth, degradation of dune systems, construction of dams on rivers, urban infrastructure, and, paradoxically, coastal protection works themselves contribute to the imbalance of the sediment supply system (Morais; Pinheiro, 2011; Paula et al. 2013; Paula et al. 2015; Pinheiro et al. 2016; Moreira et al. 2020; Lacerda Barros et al. 2020; Lacerda Barros et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoastal erosion is evident along more than 3,000 km of shoreline in the region, significantly affecting cities such as Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador, and Natal. This situation has become even more critical when considered in conjunction with the effects of ongoing climate change (Small; Nicholls, 2003; McGranahan et al. 2007; Smith, 2011; Seto et al. 2011; Barbier, 2015; Andrew et al. 2019; McMichael et al. 2020; Lv et al. 2021; Paula et al. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Cear\u0026aacute;, the situation is equally worrying. All 20 coastal municipalities in the state face stretches of severe coastal erosion. According to the Contingency Action Plan for Coastal Erosion Processes (PCEC) of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;, published in 2024, more than 47% of the 573 km of its shoreline already show some erosion problems. These results corroborate the observations of Morais et al. (2018), which already indicated a trend of coastal stretches undergoing erosion remaining close to 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the municipalities most affected by coastal erosion in Cear\u0026aacute;, Icapu\u0026iacute; stands out as a critical and consolidated hub. The beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos, for example, have experienced intense erosion of their shoreline over the past 10 years, resulting in the destruction of urban infrastructure and homes. According to Lacerda Barros et al. (2024a), this problem is equally evident on other beaches in the municipality, such as Barreiras de Cima, Barreiras de Baixo, and Barrinha, where coastal ecosystems and local communities, which depend on tourism and fishing, are increasingly vulnerable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe history of erosion in Icapu\u0026iacute; reveals that, since the early 2000s, buildings near the shoreline have suffered significant damage due to the advancing sea (Lacerda Barros, 2018; Chacanza et al. 2022; Leite; Almeida, 2023 and Chacanza et al. 2024). In response to this situation, the municipal government has built some rigid coastal protection structures, such as rockfill on the beaches of Barreiras de Baixo (2009), Barrinha (2011), and Redonda (2019). In addition to these public initiatives, many residents have erected their own structures over time, using materials such as concrete walls, wooden walls, and sandbag barriers. \u0026nbsp;In 2025, intervention at Peroba Beach by the city government began with the construction of a breakwater, one of two planned for the area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWilliams et al. (2018) and Lacerda Barros et al. (2021) highlight that measures such as these are controversial, mainly due to flaws in planning, management, and monitoring, as well as technical construction challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClimate change poses new challenges for coastal management, such as rising sea levels, increased storms, and intensified erosion, threatening both the safety of populations and environmental integrity. In this context, the integration of these policies needs to recognize the dynamic and uncertain nature of the problem, allowing for continuous adjustments, always based on community values (Burger et al. 2016; Lawrence et al. 2018; Asmus et al. 2018; Andr\u0026eacute;s et al. 2018; Asmus et al. 2019; Loizidou et al. 2024; Correa, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAwareness of the region\u0026rsquo;s most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change is fundamental to effective decision-making, as stated by Nicolodi; Peterman (2010). Based on this understanding, it is possible to identify the importance of legal and regulatory frameworks, which play a crucial role in the evolution of coastal management regulation. Although public policy is predominant, there is a diversity of complementary approaches, such as technical documents and international commitments, reflecting institutional maturity. However, these approaches also reveal that much remains to be done to improve coordination between different sectors of society, especially regarding integrating academia with decision-makers and involving society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven this scenario, it is essential to adopt management and mitigation measures that include non-structural alternatives based on nature, such as the restoration of natural ecosystems and urban reorganization. Brazil has several legal tools, such as the National Coastal Management Plan, the Orla Project, and Municipal Master Plans (De Gouveia Souza, 2009; Scherer, et al. 2010; De Oliveira; Nicolodi, 2012; Scherer, 2013), which should be employed in non-structural coastal erosion management actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is essential to investigate the effectiveness of land management tools and public policies already implemented to mitigate the impacts of coastal erosion. Thus, this study evaluates the effectiveness of these tools and actions applied to the beach-cliff system of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos, in the municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;, Cear\u0026aacute;, Northeast Brazil. The study seeks to identify gaps in the implementation of existing regulations and based on this, propose recommendations to improve the management of these areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.1 Study Area\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute; is located 202 km from Fortaleza, the state capital, in the Northeast Region of Brazil. Access is via highways CE-040, BR-116, and BR-304. Its coastline stretches for approximately 46 km, encompassing 14 beaches distributed among the districts of Icapu\u0026iacute; (Sede), Ibicuitaba, and Manibu (Meireles et al. 2016). For coastal management purposes, this area is designated as Sector 1 (East Coast) of the Coastal Management of the State of Cear\u0026aacute; (GERCO-CE). The beaches of Picos, Peroba, and Redonda, the spatial focus of the study, are located in the western part of the municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;, on the coastal stretch of the municipal seat (Figure 01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study area is located within the Ber\u0026ccedil;\u0026aacute;rio da Vida Marinha Environmental Protection Area (APA), a State Conservation Unit for Sustainable Use. Predominantly marine, this APA is part of a local mosaic of conservation units, situated between two municipal APAs: the Ponta Grossa APA and the Manguezal da Barra Grande APA.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis stretch of the Cear\u0026aacute; coast is part of the emerged portion of the Potiguar Basin, highlighting geological outcrops from the drift phase of this basin. The main geological formations are the Janda\u0026iacute;ra Formation (Cretaceous, composed of limestone), the Barreiras Formation (Miocene, with conglomerates and sandstones), and the Potengi Formation (Quaternary, with aeolian sandstones) (Ximenes Neto et al. 2024a). These formations support sedimentary marine cliffs and paleocliffs along the coast, giving rise to significant geomorphological features.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study area also contains environments formed during the Holocene, which are essential to the current landscape configuration, resulting from sedimentary and geomorphological processes. Specifically, it is associated with a Late Holocene marine terrace, formed in the last 1,200 years BP (Ximenes Neto et al. 2024b). This terrace, located between the paleocliffs and the current coastline, is crucial for understanding the processes of erosion and sedimentation, generating important information for understanding regional environmental evolution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlong the Icapu\u0026iacute; Coastal Plain, there are geomorphological features resulting from sea level variations in the Quaternary period, including Holocene marine terraces, dunes, cliffs, paleocliffs, beaches, lagoons, and coastal lagoons. Their formation and evolution are related to global events of marine regression and transgression at the end of the Quaternary period (Meireles et al. 1991; Meireles, 2011; Cear\u0026aacute;, 2016; Ximenes Neto et al. 2024). Some geomorphological units, such as cliffs and coastal dunes, both receive sediments from mass movements and aeolian processes and act as sediment sources for current coastal dynamics (Morais et al. 2006; Pinheiro et al. 2016; Lacerda Barros et al. 2024b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe climate in Northeast Brazil is influenced by the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), where the northeast and southeast trade winds meet. Rainfall occurs mainly between February and May, with a dry period during the rest of the year, with variations due to the El Ni\u0026ntilde;o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon (Marengo et al. 2017). Intermittent surface drainage and the semi-arid climate contribute to the low volume of sediment available for the beach system and continental shelf of Cear\u0026aacute; (Morais; Pinheiro, 2011). According to FUNCEME, the historical average rainfall in Icapu\u0026iacute; is 714 mm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe coast of Cear\u0026aacute; has a semi-diurnal mesotidal regime, with maximum amplitudes of 3.3 m (Morais, 1981; Maia, 1998; Pinheiro et al. 2016), reaching up to 3.8 m in Icapu\u0026iacute;, according to the Areia Branca (RN) Tide Table. According to the Wavewatch III model, waves reach up to 2.2 m between December and March and vary from 0.8 m to 1.5 m in the other months, with periods between 4.1 s and 9.9 s (Lacerda Barros, 2018). Swell waves have periods between 10 s and 11.5 s. In Cear\u0026aacute;, sea waves predominate (72%), while swell waves represent 28% (Carvalho et al. 2007). Coastal drift occurs mainly in an east-west direction.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe methodology of this study was structured in four stages, with the aim of evaluating the application of territorial management tools on the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos. The detailed stages are briefly described in the flowchart and paragraphs below (Figure 02).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStep 1: Defining the spatial area and delimiting the shoreline\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial stage of the study focused on defining the spatial scope. The beaches were selected based on the degree of erosion, existing coastal protection infrastructure, and the pattern of occupation both along the cliffs and near the shoreline. Thus, the analyzed shoreline is 3.5 km long and extends to the cliff plateau, which is located behind the study area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn September 2024, we conducted fieldwork to map the current position of the shoreline of the three beaches under study. This survey took place during a spring tide, which coincidentally occurred during a supermoon tide. We used a high-precision GNSS RTK receiver, configured in UTM, Datum SIRGAS 2000, Zone 24S. In addition, during the collection, we recorded descriptive and photographic observations about the conditions of the coastline directly on the equipment collector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe criterion adopted to define the coastline was the maximum tidal range. In other words, the coastline was determined by the Current Maximum High Tide Line (LPMA) during the spring tide. In the case of the beaches analyzed, as they are erosion centers, the LPMA coincided, when it existed, with the base of coastal works, in front of residences and the base of cliffs and frontal dunes, directly dialoguing with criteria defined in other studies, such as those proposed by Crowell et al. (1991), Leatherman (2003), Morton et al. \u0026nbsp;(2005), Boak; Turner (2005), Baptista et al. \u0026nbsp;(2011), Albuquerque et al. (2013), Mendon\u0026ccedil;a et al. \u0026nbsp;(2014), Muehe; Klumb-Oliveira (2014), Rangel-Buitrago et al. (2015), Lima et al. (2019), Moreira et al. (2020), Quang et al. (2021), Ba\u0026iacute;a et al. (2021), Vasconcelos et al. (2021), Khakhim et al. \u0026nbsp;(2024), Nascimento; Andrade (2024), Machado et al. \u0026nbsp;(2024), Vasconcelos et al. (2024), and Lacerda Barros et al. (2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStep 2: Imaging with RPA and Image Processing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe beaches studied were imaged using a DJI Air 2S Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). The RPA flight followed a flight plan defined in the DroneDeploy application, with a flight mission programmed to cover the entire length of the LPMA, with a flight height of 100 m and lateral and frontal overlap of image acquisition of 70%, providing a GSD of 3 cm. To improve the positional accuracy of the images obtained, control and check points were established throughout the target area, enabling orthometric correction of the data and accurate georeferencing of the photogrammetric products generated. All points were georeferenced using a high-precision GNSS-RTK, with a maximum associated error of 4 cm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe coordinates obtained by the GNSS RTK receiver were sent to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) platform for post-processing using the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique. This ensures the accurate georeferencing of the collected GCPs and the positional accuracy of the photogrammetric products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe photogrammetric processing of the images obtained by RPA was performed using Agisoft Metashape 2.1 software. The workflow involves importing images, followed by aligning these images to generate an initial 3D point cloud. The software then creates a dense point cloud, from which a 3D mesh is generated. After that, the images are overlaid on the mesh to create a photorealistic texture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, Metashape allows the generation of orthophotos and 3D models. These steps are described in the works of Westoby et al. (2012); Dewez et al. (2016); Leisner et al. (2024). Photogrammetric products made it possible to accurately identify and demarcate the position of the shoreline/LPMA, the location of occupations, and other relevant coastal features, such as the base of the cliffs (Leisner et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStep 3: Cataloging laws, decrees, resolutions, normative acts (ordinances, normative instructions, and others)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis stage consisted of cataloguing legal tools, such as laws, decrees, resolutions, ordinances, and normative instructions related to territorial management and occupation, with a specific focus on the environment and the coastal zone. Current federal, state, and municipal legislation applicable to the study area was considered. The research was conducted through the electronic portals of the Federal Government, the Government of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;, and the Municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the registered documents, the spatial boundaries of the protection and restricted use zones established in the regulatory frameworks were extracted. These boundaries, or buffers, were digitized and incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS), using cartographic bases and orthophotos from a survey conducted with a drone on the three beaches. For an integrated analysis, all data were superimposed, including the LPMA, the legal protection boundaries established in Brazilian legislation, and the boundaries of the coastal cliffs in the study area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStep 4: Application of territorial management\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003etools\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for environmental protection, following federal, state, and municipal guidelines\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the monitored section of the Icapu\u0026iacute; shoreline, territorial management tools for environmental protection were applied whenever possible, considering local characteristics. This application followed federal, state, and municipal guidelines (Figure 03) and included: a) The Orla Project, with buffers of 50 meters for urbanized areas and 200 meters for non-urbanized areas; b) A 33-meter strip between the LPMA and the first public road, as established in the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;; and c) A 50-meter strip at the base and top of the cliffs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLaw No. 540/2010, of Icapu\u0026iacute;, was also applied in the analysis, in accordance with Resolution No. 303, from March 20, 2002, of the National Environment Council (CONAMA), which defines protected areas as cliff foothills, plateau edges, slopes, dunes, mangroves, sandbanks, wildlife refuges, and springs, with minimum protection strips: 50 meters for cliff bases, 100 meters for plateau edges, and 33 meters from the mean high tide line, considered the maximum in this study, for sandbanks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe delimitation of Marine Lands was excluded due to methodological difficulties in obtaining the Mean High Tide Line for the year 1831. It is also important to highlight the possible transformations in coastal areas, considering the dynamism of natural and anthropogenic processes, as well as their direct impacts on local dynamics. Muehe (2001) also points out that such delimitation often does not exceed the width of the berm of wider beaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the LPMA was used as the main criterion for establishing occupancy limits and protective strips on the stretch of sandy beaches in this study, aiming to simplify the application of the methodology given the multiplicity of possible criteria related to the definition of emerged beaches provided for in Brazilian legislation. This approach is also justified by the high degree of erosion and intense anthropism recorded in the natural stretch of the shoreline, which reinforces the need for a technical and uniform parameter that allows for greater precision in the delimitation of vulnerable areas and the implementation of coastal management measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, all established boundaries were spatially compared with the local reality mapped in the field, generating possibilities for analysis and identification of conflicts between human occupation and Brazilian environmental legislation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1. Analysis of territorial management and occupation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003etools\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;focused on the environment and coastal areas in Brazil, Cear\u0026aacute;, and Icapu\u0026iacute;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBetween 1831 and 2024, the identified legal and regulatory corpus comprises 168 legal and infra-legal tools applicable to the Brazilian coastal zone (Figure 04). Between 1830 and 1960, only six normative milestones were recorded, showing the incipient institutional attention to environmental issues in the country, especially those related to coastal zone management. It was only in the 1980s, with the promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the creation of the National Coastal Management Plan (GERCO), established by Law No. 7,661/1988, that the Brazilian coast began to be recognized as a strategic space for territorial planning and the formulation of public environmental policies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 01 summarizes the main legal tools applicable to the context of the study (1831\u0026ndash;2024), selected from among the 168 documents analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 01: The main legal tools applicable to the context of the study (1831\u0026ndash;2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLEGAL TOOLS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYEAR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTYPE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDESCRIPTION\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Law on Marine Lands\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1831\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefines the marine land strip based on the 1831 mean high tide line.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Decree-Law No. 3,438\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1941\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecree-law\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulates marine lands (33 m from the 1831 LPMA).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC/UNESCO)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1960\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoordinates ocean research and policy under the UN.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Decree No. 74,557 \u0026ndash; Establishment of CIRM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1974\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstablishes the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources (CIRM).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1972\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProgram\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreated after the Stockholm Conference; reference for global environmental policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eU.S. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1972\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw (USA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrated coastal management model adopted as an international reference.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Law No. 6,938 \u0026ndash; National Environmental Policy (PNMA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1981\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLandmark environmental policy in Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Law No. 7,661 \u0026ndash; Establishes PNGC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1988\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreates the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCIRM Resolution No. 01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1990\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResolution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpdates PNGC guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCIRM Resolution No. 05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1997\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResolution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComplements PNGC guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCIRM Resolution No. 05 \u0026ndash; Federal Action Plan (PAF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1998\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResolution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulates the Federal Action Plan for the coastal zone.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Law No. 9,985 \u0026ndash; National System of Conservation Units (SNUC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstablishes SNUC and regulates Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCONAMA Resolution No. 303\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResolution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefines minimum protection buffers in sensitive areas such as cliffs and restinga vegetation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState (CE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState Law No. 13,796 \u0026ndash; State Coastal Management Policy (PEGC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulates coastal management in the state of Cear\u0026aacute;.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal Law No. 12,187 \u0026ndash; National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulates mitigation and adaptation actions for climate change.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMunicipal (Icapu\u0026iacute;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMunicipal Law No. 541 \u0026ndash; Municipal Environmental Policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstablishes local environmental policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMunicipal (Icapu\u0026iacute;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMunicipal Law No. 542 \u0026ndash; Creation of IMFLA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreates the municipal environmental enforcement agency.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState (CE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState Law No. 14,950 \u0026ndash; State System of Conservation Units (SEUC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstablishes SEUC \u0026ndash; state-level protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState (CE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState Decree No. 30,816 \u0026ndash; Regulates SEUC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDetails guidelines and criteria for SEUC implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational Program for Coastal Line Conservation (PROCOSTA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProgram\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal initiative for shoreline protection.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarine Spatial Planning (MSP) of the Blue Amazon\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic Policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational initiative for marine spatial planning through 2030.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreation of the Beach Management Unit (NUGEP/SPU)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdministrative Act\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoordinates the transfer of beach management to municipalities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState (CE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState Law No. 18,298 \u0026ndash; State Marine Policy (PERM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaw\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLegal framework for marine management in Cear\u0026aacute;.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState (CE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState Decree No. 35,071 \u0026ndash; Emergency Actions in Coastal Areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefines guidelines for responding to coastal incidents and erosion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: The Authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe creation of specific resolutions within the National Environment Council (CONAMA) and the subsequent development of Coastal Management Plans at the state and municipal levels consolidated a more robust regulatory framework aimed at regulating the use, occupation, and conservation of the coastal zone, highlighting an institutional shift toward an integrated and sustainable approach to this territory.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Regency Period (1831\u0026ndash;1840), when Brazil was ruled by regents due to the minority of Dom Pedro II, was crucial for the definition of Navy Lands. These lands were initially mentioned in the Federal Law of November 15, 1831, and later detailed by Federal Decree-Law No. 3,438 of July 17, 1941. Article 1 of this decree established that Terrenos de Marinha covers a strip of 33 meters from the 1831 Mean High Tide Line, a criterion that is still in force, according to the Secretariat of Federal Property (SPU).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe absence of records during the 1950s suggests that Brazil\u0026apos;s rapid urbanization and industrialization likely occurred without accompanying environmental or territorial concerns. This historical neglect may have contributed to unplanned land occupation and the escalation of negative environmental, social, and economic impacts, consequences that persist to this day.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the international level, however, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1960 marked a significant milestone in ocean governance. As the only United Nations body dedicated exclusively to marine sciences, the IOC coordinates global initiatives in oceanographic research, the sustainable management of marine resources, and the mitigation of climate change impacts on the oceans.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBetween the 1970s and 1990s, greater attention was given to environmental issues and coastal management. During this period, 32 key milestones were recorded, with the 1980s standing out with 15 entries. This increase reflects the strengthening of the global environmental agenda, driven by landmark events such as the Stockholm Conference (1972), which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Rio Earth Summit, held in Brazil in 1992.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother important milestone from this period, directly related to Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), was the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. This act aimed to promote the sustainable management of coastal zones through coordination between federal and state governments across nearly the entire U.S. coastline. It became a global reference by fostering a balance between environmental preservation and the sustainable use of coastal resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn response to international movements such as the CZMA, Brazil made important strides in coastal management. Key milestones from this period include: the creation of the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources (CIRM) through Federal Decree No. 74,557 of September 12, 1974; the National Environmental Policy (PNMA), established by Federal Law No. 6,938 of August 31, 1981; the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC), created by Law No. 7,661 of May 16, 1988, and updated by CIRM Resolution No. 01/1990 and CIRM Resolution No. 05/1997; and the First Federal Action Plan for the Coastal Zone (PAF), regulated by CIRM Resolution No. 05/1998. Despite these advances, the output during this period is still considered modest, reflecting institutional limitations and an initial, exploratory approach to coastal issues in Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis movement, initiated in previous decades, gained momentum in the 2000s, when a significant increase in the number of milestones was observed, with 41 entries. This growth reflects the outcomes of implementing public policies such as the PNGC in 1988, as well as a gradual\u0026mdash;though still limited\u0026mdash;integration between science and governance. Among the most notable milestones of this period are the creation of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), established by Federal Law No. 9,985 of July 18, 2000, and the resolutions issued by the National Environmental Council (CONAMA), which regulate Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the state of Cear\u0026aacute;, a key milestone was the establishment of the State Coastal Management Policy (PEGC), created by State Law No. 13,796 of June 30, 2006, in alignment with the PNGC. Since its enactment, the policy has not undergone any official updates up to the conclusion of this article. During the same period, the creation of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), established by Federal Law No. 12,187 of December 29, 2009, further reinforced Brazil\u0026apos;s sustainability agenda.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the 2010s, this movement consolidated with the introduction of 54 new legal milestones, the highest number recorded to date, indicating a period of institutional maturation and increased scientific and political engagement in decision-making processes. At the municipal level, in Icapu\u0026iacute;, the establishment of the Municipal Environmental Policy and the Municipal Institute for Environmental Licensing and Enforcement (IMFLA), through Municipal Laws No. 541 and No. 542, both enacted on December 29, 2010, exemplifies this local dynamic. At the state level, the creation of the State System of Conservation Units (SEUC), established by State Law No. 14,950 of June 27, 2011, and regulated by State Decree No. 30,816 of January 25, 2012, was a key milestone of this phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2017, the First United Nations Ocean Conference, held in New York, marked a turning point for global ocean policies. The event led to significant national commitments, such as the development of the National Program for Coastal Zone Conservation (PROCOSTA), the Marine Litter Combat Project, and the formulation of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) for the \u0026ldquo;Blue Amazon,\u0026rdquo; with targets set through 2030. In Brazil, the focus remained on practical measures, including the creation of the Beach Management Unit (NUGEP) within the Secretariat for Federal Heritage (SPU) in 2018, which established regulations for transferring beach management responsibilities to municipalities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recent years (2020\u0026ndash;2024), there has been a slight slowdown, with 35 milestones recorded so far. Nevertheless, the number remains high, reflecting the continued relevance of the topic. Additionally, we are currently in the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021\u0026ndash;2030), which may lead to a significant increase in actions and milestones by the end of the decade. This slowdown can be attributed to disruptive global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which redirected efforts toward emergency response and impacted the continuity of coastal management initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2. Application of Territorial Management and Land Use\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTools\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Aimed at the Environment and Coastal Zone in the Municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of territorial management and land-use planning tools is essential to ensure sustainability and the proper occupation of coastal areas, as exemplified by municipalities such as Icapu\u0026iacute;, in the state of Cear\u0026aacute;. Icapu\u0026iacute; has a history of vulnerability to coastal erosion and faces challenges stemming from inadequate planning of land use and occupation along its shoreline, as illustrated in Figures 05, 06, and 07.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current national, state, and municipal legislation establishes clear guidelines for the protection and use of coastal areas, considering the specific characteristics of each environment. Along the terrestrial coastline, the protection buffer varies according to the degree of urbanization\u0026mdash;50 meters in urbanized areas and 200 meters in non-urbanized areas. This differentiation aims to balance urban development needs with the preservation of natural resources, which are essential for maintaining biodiversity and ensuring environmental security.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, specific criteria are applied to environments such as sedimentary cliffs, estuaries, lagoons, and rocky shore areas, which require protection measures tailored to their natural dynamics and vulnerabilities. For example, sedimentary cliffs are subject to a 50-meter protection buffer from the cliff edge, while rocky shore areas require specific definitions within the municipal master plan, including safety zones located above the maximum storm wave reach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn flood-prone areas, boundaries are defined by contour lines located at least 1 meter above the spring high tide level (a scenario not considered in this study). These parameters, along with the 33-meter protective buffer established by the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;, form a crucial regulatory framework for guiding public policies and territorial management actions. This framework promotes environmental resilience and protects coastal ecosystems in the face of human pressures and climate change.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the local level, Municipal Law No. 540/2010, enacted by the municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;, designates several areas of significant ecological and environmental interest as protected zones. These include the bases of cliffs, plateau edges, slopes, dunes, mangroves, restinga vegetation, wildlife refuge areas, and spring zones. The legislation also establishes minimum protection buffers to ensure the conservation of these areas. For the bases of cliffs, the buffer is set at 50 meters; for plateau edges and areas near springs, the minimum distance is 100 meters; and for restinga areas, the protection zone is defined as 33 meters from the mean high tide line.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this context, the establishment of a Sustainable Use Conservation Unit in the study area stands out as a crucial measure. Such an initiative should enable balanced human occupation while ensuring biodiversity, the maintenance of ecological processes, and environmental renewal. In a constantly changing marine environment, where beaches and cliffs are subject to coastal erosion and other impacts driven by both natural and anthropogenic factors, the preservation of fauna, such as manatees and shorebirds, is essential for maintaining ecological stability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 08 presents topographic profiles obtained during fieldwork at the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos in Icapu\u0026iacute; (CE), highlighting the relationship between cliffs and the beach zone. In Redonda, a tall and steep cliff is observed, with steps indicating successive retreats and a short transition to the beach, typical of areas subject to intense marine erosion. In contrast, Peroba displays a smoother and more continuous slope, suggesting lower instability and greater sediment coverage at the base of the cliff, which may indicate more diffuse erosional processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe profile of Picos Beach is the most irregular, featuring multiple steps and depressions that suggest localized collapses and the influence of rainwater runoff on the cliff face. The differences among the three profiles reveal distinct morphodynamic behaviors: Redonda and Picos exhibit greater instability and higher erosion risk, while Peroba Beach shows characteristics of relatively greater stability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.1. Application of Occupation Limits According to the Orla Project\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFederal Decree No. 5,300 of December 7, 2004, which regulates Law No. 7,661 of May 16, 1988, establishes the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC) and sets forth rules for land use and occupation in the coastal zone, as well as criteria for the management of the maritime shoreline. In Chapter 4, Section I, Article 22, the decree defines the maritime shoreline as the strip within the coastal zone, of variable width, composed of both a marine and a terrestrial portion, and characterized by the interface between land and sea.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe same decree stipulates that the terrestrial boundaries of the shoreline, as previously mentioned in the methodology section of this article, must be delineated from the high tide line or from the outer limits of coastal ecosystems such as beaches, dunes, scarps, cliffs, and rocky shores, among others. Some of these criteria are similar to the definition of \u0026quot;beach\u0026quot; established in \u0026sect; 3, Article 10 of Federal Law No. 7,661 of May 16, 1988, which created the PNGC. According to this definition, a beach is understood as the area periodically covered and uncovered by water, along with the adjacent strip of detrital material\u0026mdash;such as sand, gravel, pebbles, and stones\u0026mdash;extending up to the point where natural vegetation begins or, in its absence, where another ecosystem starts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute; does not yet have a shoreline classified as urbanized, which prevented the decentralization of shoreline management through the TAGP (Term of Commitment for Shared Management) in 2017, despite the existence of an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (PGI) since the mid-2000s. The classification of an urbanized shoreline depends directly on the implementation of the municipality\u0026rsquo;s Participatory Master Plan, which to date is still under development. As a result, the absence of a specific regulatory tool generates uncertainty regarding zoning regulations and territorial planning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough Icapu\u0026iacute; does not yet have a formally recognized urbanized shoreline, the areas studied exhibit urbanized characteristics, particularly due to intense anthropogenic activity and the transformations in the natural landscape that have occurred over recent decades as the municipality has developed. Given this scenario, the present analysis applied protective boundaries based on different shoreline conditions, such as urbanized, non-urbanized, sandy beach, and beach with cliff presence. This approach aims to incorporate both the current legal framework and the physical and socio-economic realities of the municipality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 09 illustrates the map showing the application of land-use limits according to the Orla Project for beaches classified as urbanized, based on the three beaches analyzed and the data presented in this study. The results indicate that at least 258 structures are located within the 50-meter protective buffer zone 169 in Redonda Beach, 65 in Peroba Beach, and 24 in Picos Beach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, under the current scenario where the shoreline is still classified as a non-urbanized area, at least 724 structures were identified within the 200-meter protective buffer, measured from the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA) inland. These include 473 in Redonda Beach, 134 in Peroba Beach, and 117 in Picos Beach (Figure 10).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn both figures, the pink line defines the permissible coastal boundary for current land use. This line represents the present position of the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA), indicating the furthest inland point where constructions could legally exist in compliance with current regulations. It theoretically marks the limit of allowed occupation, assuming full adherence to applicable norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the three beaches analyzed, Redonda Beach has the highest number of structures, both within the 50-meter and the 200-meter protective zones. The greatest concentration of buildings is found particularly near the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA) and along the top of the cliff located in the area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePeroba Beach, although having a lower building density compared to Redonda Beach, faces a critical situation due to an intense and rapidly accelerating erosion process. This phenomenon affects nearly all structures located near the LPMA, making palliative containment measures necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, Picos Beach, like the others, contains structures within the established protective buffer zones. However, it shows lower building density and greater spacing between structures, resulting in a less concentrated and more natural occupation pattern compared to the other areas analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother relevant aspect concerns the straight-line distance between the base of the cliffs and the LPMA, a zone where many of the mapped structures in the study area are concentrated. The results reveal significant variations in the width of this zone, indicating different degrees of vulnerability to coastal erosion and a lack of natural protection for the existing developments within this space.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Redonda Beach, the greatest distance was recorded in the central portion, reaching 154 meters, followed by the western section, with 142 meters. In contrast, the eastern portion shows the shortest distance only 82 meters, indicating a progressive narrowing of the strip between the cliff and the LPMA. This area is particularly vulnerable, as the tide can reach the base and part of the promontory that marks the boundary between Redonda and Peroba Beaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Peroba Beach, the central section registers a distance of 122 meters, while the western portion shows 98 meters. However, as one moves eastward, the width of the strip decreases considerably, reaching 98 meters and narrowing further to just 35 meters at the most constricted part of the beach. This scenario highlights the significant impact of erosion in the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, at Picos Beach, the distances between the base of the cliffs and the LPMA are even shorter compared to the other beaches analyzed. The distance in the central portion is greatest, at 72 meters, the western section is 55 meters, and the eastern portion has extremely reduced distances\u0026mdash;32 meters, and even 0 meters in some areas. These values indicate an extremely narrow strip, making the area highly vulnerable to coastal dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structures located within this narrow strip are squeezed not only by erosive processes resulting from the local beach dynamics but also by the retreat of the cliffs, which already host buildings at the top. This configuration significantly amplifies the risks to existing constructions, as they are exposed to intensifying erosion and potential structural instability over time (Figure 11).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe delineation of the 50-meter protective buffer from the top of the cliffs in the area, Figure 12, is based on the criteria established by the Orla Project. The main objective of this buffer is to protect the cliffs by preserving their stability and minimizing the impacts of irregular land use. Additionally, this measure aims to reduce risks to the local population by preventing landslides and other erosive processes that may compromise both the safety of buildings and the well-being of residents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, it was identified that at least 257 structures are located within this protective buffer zone, distributed as follows: 157 in Redonda Beach, 30 in Peroba Beach, and 70 in Picos Beach. These structures include residences, commercial establishments, and tourism-related infrastructure, reflecting the diverse range of uses along the coastline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs with the other parameters applied under the Orla Project, Redonda Beach shows the highest population density within the established protection zones both along the shoreline and atop the cliffs. It is important to highlight that some of the structures are located directly on the cliff edge, an area of high geological vulnerability. Furthermore, there are constructions built on artificial landfills used to extend the structural base of these buildings. This type of intervention can compromise the area\u0026rsquo;s stability, increasing the risks associated with erosion and landslides, and calls for urgent attention from the local government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Peroba Beach has a lower population density and more widely spaced structures compared to Redonda Beach. In this area, most of the buildings primarily private residences are located away from the most vulnerable zones, resulting in reduced anthropogenic pressure on the protective buffer. However, some structures can still be found along the cliff edge, although in smaller numbers. Despite being less frequent, these constructions pose a risk to both the structural stability of the cliffs and the safety of the buildings and their occupants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike the other areas analyzed and due to the narrow usable strip between the cliff edge and the LPMA, as previously discussed, most of the structures at Picos Beach are concentrated on top of the cliff. This occupation pattern reflects the constraints imposed by the local geography, resulting in significant densification in this area, although in a manner that appears more organically integrated with the landscape compared to the other beaches analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.2. Application of Occupation Limits According to the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute; (33-Meter Buffer from the LPMA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Article 23, Chapter 2, of the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;, a beach is defined as the area periodically covered and uncovered by maritime, fluvial, or lacustrine waters, along with the adjacent strip of detrital material such as sand, gravel, pebbles, and stones extending to the point where natural vegetation or another ecosystem begins. The Constitution guarantees a free buffer zone, with a minimum width of thirty-three meters, between the LPMA (Mean High Tide Line) and the first public thoroughfare or private property resulting from a subdivision approved by the Municipal Executive and registered with the local Land Registry Office. This concept, however, differs from the one adopted by the federal government for defining \u0026ldquo;terrenos de marinha\u0026rdquo; (federal lands with building restrictions), which uses the 1831 Mean High Tide Line as a reference but applies the same 33 m \u0026quot;protective buffer\u0026quot; extent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the Constitution does not establish specific guidelines for shoreline retreat due to erosion processes driven by local factors, nor does it account for sea level rise resulting from global climate change. As a result, the delineation of the coastal protection buffer remains based on non-fixed and dynamic references, such as the Mean High Tide Line (LPMA), without considering the natural dynamics of erosion or the impacts of climate change. The absence of clear criteria for adapting to geomorphological changes can lead to significant challenges in territorial management, particularly in areas subject to intense coastal erosion, where buildings and infrastructure may become increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of coastal dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn response to this issue, Figure 13 presents the map showing the application of occupation limits according to the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;. Based on the analysis of the three beaches and the provisions of the State Constitution, at least 147 structures are currently located within the 33-meter protective buffer (81 in Redonda Beach, 45 in Peroba Beach, and 21 in Picos Beach) that is, within the area between the LPMA and the boundaries established for environmental preservation and orderly coastal land use. These occupations may lead to potential conflicts with current legislation, requiring management and regularization measures to ensure the protection of ecosystems and compliance with territorial planning guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, due to the significant retreat of the shoreline caused by erosion, several sections were observed where the LPMA overlaps with the line of local public roads, making it difficult to comply with the 33-meter safety buffer free of structures between the LPMA and public or private roads in the area. This issue is mitigated at Redonda Beach thanks to redevelopment works and the installation of rock revetments. However, it remains a concern at Peroba Beach and in a section of Picos Beach, which has begun to show signs of erosional processes in recent years. At Picos Beach, some private containment measures have already been implemented in the easternmost portion of the area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.3. Application of Occupation Limits in Accordance with Municipal Law No. 540/2010 of December 29, 2010, Which Establishes Non-Buildable Areas of Permanent Preservation and Areas of Significant Ecological, Environmental, and Landscape Interest in the Municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 14 presents the application of occupation limits in Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs) as established by Municipal Law No. 540/2010. During the field survey, a total of 286 structures were identified within the 50-meter buffer zone measured from the base of the cliffs toward the ocean: 197 in Redonda Beach, 65 in Peroba Beach, and 24 in Picos Beach. Additionally, within the 100-meter buffer measured from the top of the cliffs inland, 430 structures were recorded: 274 in Redonda, 52 in Peroba, and 104 in Picos.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRedonda Beach has the highest number of structures within both the 50-meter and 100-meter protective buffers, surpassing the other areas analyzed. At Picos Beach, the highest concentration of buildings is found on top of the cliff, likely due to the limited space available at the base, as previously noted. In contrast, at Peroba Beach, the distribution of structures between the two protective zones is more balanced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to these observations, the 33-meter protective buffer established by the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute; was also considered for analysis and comparison purposes. In certain sections, this boundary overlaps with the 50-meter buffer defined by municipal law, primarily due to coastal erosion and the narrow strip between the cliff base and the LPMA. This condition further heightens the vulnerability of the area\u0026rsquo;s structures, increasing the risks faced by the local population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis scenario is particularly evident at Redonda Beach, especially in its central portion and in the easternmost section. In the rest of the area, however, the impact is mitigated by the presence of the rock revetment on the western side, which controls shoreline advance and prevents retreat toward the cliff. At Peroba Beach, the overlap of protective buffers occurs in more than half of the area analyzed, while at Picos Beach, this phenomenon is observed along nearly the entire extent of the evaluated shoreline.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study reveal a critical scenario of non-enforcement of legal territorial planning regulations along the coastal zone of Icapu\u0026iacute; (CE), particularly on the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos. Field and spatial analyses showed that over 700 structures are located within zones that should be legally protected. This situation highlights not only the weakness of enforcement mechanisms but also the limited institutional capacity to address the conflicts between land occupation and risk, as well as the lack of initiatives aimed at improved planning and territorial management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Redonda Beach, the highest absolute number of constructions in irregular areas was recorded: 473 within the 200-meter buffer (non-urbanized shoreline scenario) from the LPMA, 169 within the 50-meter buffer (urbanized shoreline scenario), and 157 within the 50-meter zone from the base of the cliff. Additionally, 274 structures are located on top of the escarpment. This multiple overlap of violations reflects not only disordered urban densification but also the ineffectiveness of environmental legislation and enforcement as a real control mechanism. The presence of buildings constructed on artificial landfills at the edge of geologically unstable cliffs indicates that, although the risk is visible and well documented, it is systematically ignored (Braga, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs noted by Clark (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), Humphrey et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), Oliveira; Nicolodi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), Nicolodi et al. (2021), Cristiano et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and Nicolodi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the absence of effective territorial management actions even in the presence of well-defined legal frameworks undermines the effectiveness of coastal governance and exposes communities to avoidable risks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Peroba Beach, although the number of buildings is lower (134 within the 200-meter buffer, 65 within the 50-meter buffer, and 30 on top of the cliffs), the situation is more critical due to the beach's narrow strip, with sections where the distance between the LPMA and the escarpment is only 35 meters. This limited physical configuration increases the exposure of buildings to direct tidal impact and cliff instability. Despite multiple emergency decrees issued by the municipality since 2009\u0026mdash;.seven by the time this article was completed\u0026mdash;no structural land-use reordering measures have been implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe only response observed was the construction of a groin in 2025. A palliative and delayed intervention that clearly illustrates the prevailing logic: legislation is disregarded until the risk materializes, and only then does the public sector respond with containment works. This rationale, driven by reactive investment rather than prevention, reinforces the argument that the absence of legal frameworks makes little practical difference when land-use planning is subject to local economic pressures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConversely, at the global level, numerous examples of nature-based solutions\u0026mdash;such as mangrove restoration, the creation of artificial reefs, and the preservation of foredunes\u0026mdash;have proven effective in mitigating the impacts of climate change and protecting vulnerable coastal areas, as highlighted by Borsje et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), Van Slobbe et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Cheong et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Spalding et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and Schoonees et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Picos Beach, the data shows 117 structures within the 200-meter buffer, 24 within the 50-meter buffer from the base of the cliffs, and 70 located on top of the cliffs. Most constructions are concentrated on the plateau, as the distance between the LPMA and the escarpment reaches 0 meters in some locations. This reveals a critical situation: developments compressed between the advancing sea and retreating cliffs, exposed to compounded risks. The lower density of buildings compared to Redonda should not be mistaken for greater safety\u0026mdash;on the contrary, the narrow strip between the sea and the cliffs makes the area even more vulnerable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe topographic profiles of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos beaches reveal differences in the relationship between cliffs and beach zones. Redonda features a tall, steep escarpment with successive retreats indicative of strong marine erosion. Peroba shows a gentler slope with greater sediment accumulation at the base, suggesting lower instability. In contrast, Picos has an irregular profile, with steps and depressions linked to localized collapses and rainwater runoff. These morphodynamic variations highlight differing levels of vulnerability to erosion, reinforcing the need for targeted monitoring and land-use planning actions tailored to each local context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 147 structures are located within the 33-meter buffer from the LPMA, as established by the Constitution of the State of Cear\u0026aacute;. In many sections, however, this buffer has become impractical due to shoreline retreat: the LPMA now coincides, in several areas, with the boundaries of roads and existing buildings. Since the legislation does not explicitly account for the effects of coastal erosion and the resulting shoreline retreat and/or sea level rise, there is a serious mismatch between the static legal standard and the ever-changing physical reality (Scherer et al., 2013; Schmitz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMunicipal Law No. 540/2010, enacted in Icapu\u0026iacute;, designated the bases and tops of cliffs (50 meters from the base and 100 meters from the top), along with other fragile ecosystems, as permanent preservation areas (APPs), aiming to protect the environment and natural landscapes in accordance with CONAMA Resolution No. 303/2002. Although the law established strict penalties for violations, its enforcement revealed a disconnect between regulation and practice in the face of the unregulated expansion of coastal development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Law No. 962/2023 amended the original legislation by allowing existing constructions in consolidated urban areas to remain, aiming to reconcile environmental protection with legal certainty and land tenure regularization, in accordance with the guidelines of the New Forest Code (Law No. 12,651/2012).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 286 structures were recorded at the base and 430 at the top of the cliffs, amounting to 716 buildings located in areas theoretically classified as non-buildable. Although this local legislation is clear and technically sound, its effectiveness is undermined by a lack of enforcement capacity, the absence of an active municipal master plan, and the municipality\u0026rsquo;s rejection from the Beach Management Commitment Agreement (TAGP) in 2017 denied due to the absence of formally recognized \"urbanized shorelines.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe amendment of Municipal Law No. 540/2010 through Law No. 962/2023 relaxed the protection of sensitive areas in Icapu\u0026iacute; such as cliffs and plateau edges by allowing consolidated structures in urban zones. Although aligned with the New Forest Code, this change may increase pressure on fragile environments and encourage new developments, particularly in areas already affected by coastal erosion. The situation is even more critical considering that the area falls within the boundaries of the State Environmental Protection Area (APA) \u003cem\u003eBer\u0026ccedil;\u0026aacute;rios da Vida Marinha\u003c/em\u003e (2022). In light of this, rigorous monitoring will be essential to reconcile urban development with environmental conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe comparison among the three beaches reveals distinct yet complementary patterns: Redonda illustrates consolidated densification over fragile structures; Peroba reflects the recent expansion of development in the face of uncontrolled erosion; and Picos represents the extreme use of areas with limited space between cliff and sea. These dynamics suggest that coastal occupation in Icapu\u0026iacute; has been driven not by legal boundaries, but by physical availability and a short-term logic, lacking proper risk awareness and the implementation of planned measures for the medium and long term. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e02\u003c/span\u003e provides a summary comparison of the analyzed beaches, and the results obtained.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 02\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison Between Redonda, Peroba, and Picos Beaches Regarding Occupation, Risk, and Institutional Response in Icapu\u0026iacute; (Cear\u0026aacute;, Brazil)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCRITERIA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eREDONDA BEACH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePEROBA BEACH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePICOS BEACH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNumber of irregular structures\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e473 (200m from LPMA), 169 (50m from cliff base), 157 (50m urban buffer), 274 (clifftop)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e134 (200m), 65 (50m), 30 (clifftop)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e117 (200m), 24 (50m), 70 (clifftop)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCoastal zone characteristics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh and steep cliff with successive retreats (intense marine erosion)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarrow beach strip; cliff close to LPMA (as little as 35m)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtremely narrow strip; cliff coincides with LPMA in some sections\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTopographic profile\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCliff with steps and strong erosional retreat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGentle slope with greater sediment cover at the base\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIrregular profile with steps and collapses from runoff\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLevel of vulnerability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh, due to dense occupation over unstable structures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVery high, due to erosion, narrow strip, and lack of measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtreme, due to compression between sea and cliff, compounded risks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstitutional response\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of effective land-use planning; buildings on unstable landfills\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePalliative structure (groin in 2025); no preventive planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo institutional action recorded\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLegislation effectiveness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractically nonexistent; multiple overlapping violations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLPMA disregarded; no reordering despite emergency decrees\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal protection zone physically inapplicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSummary of occupation pattern\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsolidated and unregulated densification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent occupation in face of erosion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtreme use of space compressed between sea and cliff\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall conclusion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIneffective governance, ignored legislation, systematically neglected risk\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOccupation expands without planning; legislation ignored until risks emerge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCritical situation, high risk, no action despite worsening conditions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Prepared by the authors based on field data and spatial analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven this scenario, environmental legislation exists but is not enforced whether due to the lack of local capacity (e.g., physical infrastructure, workforce, or technical training) or because of economic pressures that shape the territory in defiance of established regulations. Cliff erosion, shoreline retreat, and geomorphological collapses are well-known and documented phenomena, yet institutional responses remain sporadic, palliative, and reactively occurring after events have already taken place. As summarized by Scherer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Santos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Scherer et al. (2020), and Santos et al. (2020), the issue is not the absence of legal frameworks, but rather the disconnect between public policy, technical management, and social participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOvercoming this situation requires more than the creation of new legal frameworks\u0026mdash;it demands that existing ones be updated, integrated, enforced, and supported by structural measures. Coastal governance must move beyond a reactive stance and adopt a preventive approach grounded in science, planning, and territorial justice. Redonda, Peroba, and Picos are no exceptions; they are symptomatic of an outdated and evidently collapsing model of coastal occupation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of this, it becomes evident that public policies targeting the coastal zone must be more effectively integrated with science, governance, and social participation. It is necessary to break away from the fragmented model of decision-making and establish strategies grounded in evidence. A promising example of this integration is the Cientista Chefe Program, coordinated by the Cear\u0026aacute; Foundation for Scientific and Technological Development Support (FUNCAP), which connects researchers directly with public administration to develop innovative solutions tailored to the realities of state services. In the context of coastal management, this model presents a concrete opportunity to transform reliable technical knowledge into structural actions, enhancing public policies and strengthening local institutional capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the state of Cear\u0026aacute;, recent policies\u0026mdash;many of them driven by the \u003cem\u003eCientista Chefe\u003c/em\u003e Program\u0026mdash;have sought to consolidate this new paradigm of integration between science and public administration. Decree No. 35,071, dated December 21, 2022, establishes guidelines for contingency actions in response to incidents and/or emergency situations, including coastal erosion, providing a regulatory framework for immediate intervention in vulnerable areas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplementarily, Law No. 18,298 of December 27, 2022, established the State Policy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Resources (PERM), representing a comprehensive legal framework to guide the integrated management of marine and coastal resources. The policy focuses on sustainability, biodiversity conservation, and the rational use of maritime territory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong its provisions, Article 6 stands out by assigning to the Executive Branch the responsibility of promoting and strengthening a productive, technological, and scientific arrangement in the state of Cear\u0026aacute;, with particular emphasis on the continuous monitoring of various activities. By establishing systematic monitoring as a key element, the policy reinforces the strategic role of science and data generation in the planning and evaluation of coastal public policies, highlighting the importance of tools that integrate innovation, territorial management, and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplementing these initiatives, the \u003cem\u003eCoastal and Marine Atlas of Cear\u0026aacute;\u003c/em\u003e, launched in 2023, provides a robust technical-scientific foundation for marine and coastal spatial planning and management. It compiles integrated data on biodiversity, land use, ocean dynamics, vulnerable areas, and overlapping uses. This cartographic and analytical tool is essential for guiding public policies on spatial planning, supporting technical decision-making with concrete, evidence-based information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the findings presented in this article demonstrate that the integration of science, policy, and social participation must be expanded and strengthened. Only with this coordinated foundation will it be possible to promote effective, preventive, and equitable coastal management\u0026mdash;one that ensures environmental preservation, safeguards coastal populations, and supports the sustainable development of Cear\u0026aacute;\u0026rsquo;s shoreline.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCoastal management in Brazil has made progress through the establishment of a robust set of legal frameworks and public policies. However, it still faces persistent challenges, such as the lack of coordination among federal, state, and municipal levels of government, regional disparities in implementation capacity, and largely ineffective environmental enforcement. These factors undermine the effectiveness of regulations, especially in fragile contexts such as the municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute; (CE), where coastal erosion and irregular land occupation intensify socio-environmental risks and expose structural weaknesses in territorial governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data presented in this study demonstrate that unregulated occupation of protective buffer zones, both at the base and atop the cliffs, intensifies the effects of erosion, compromises resident safety, and places additional pressure on local infrastructure. Despite the existence of specific legislation at the federal, state, and municipal levels, the lack of preventive measures and effective enforcement has allowed the continued expansion of construction in high-risk areas. The public sector\u0026rsquo;s inaction in the face of a well-documented situation underscores the urgent need for structural responses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this regard, the effective management of a Sustainable Use Conservation Unit in the study area could represent a strategic approach to promote territorial planning, provided it is aligned with public policies focused on redevelopment, enforcement, and social participation. The integration of science, governance, and the local community is essential to transform this legal instrument into a concrete tool for planning and environmental preservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA more integrated approach to coastal management therefore requires a revision of current governance models, with an emphasis on multiscale coordination, community engagement, and the adoption of tools such as the Coastal Zone Ecological-Economic Zoning (ZEEC), environmental restoration, and continuous shoreline monitoring. The Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021\u0026ndash;2030) presents a strategic window of opportunity to enhance coastal management in Brazil. Fully seizing this opportunity demands not only new investments but, above all, strong political and institutional commitment to sustainability and the safety of coastal communities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the Funda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Cient\u0026iacute;fico e Tecnol\u0026oacute;gico (FUNCAP) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\u0026iacute;fico e Tecnol\u0026oacute;gico (CNPq), Brazil. The funding agencies had no role in the design of the study, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics and Consent to Participate declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026lsquo;Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eELB conceived and designed the research framework, coordinated the study, conducted field surveys, integrated geospatial and legal data, compiled, systematized, and analyzed federal, state, and municipal legal instruments, prepared all figures and tables, and led the writing of the main manuscript text. MML, YGV, and WBR conducted field surveys, integrated geospatial data, processed UAV imagery and GNSS-RTK datasets, and performed GIS-based spatial modeling. DPP contributed to the interpretation of results, development of policy recommendations, and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors contributed to data interpretation, reviewed the text for intellectual content, and approved the final version.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlbuquerque, M., Espinoza, J., Teixeira, P., de Oliveira, A., Corr\u0026ecirc;a, I., Calliari, L., 2013. Erosion or Coastal Variability: An Evaluation of the DSAS and the Change Polygon Methods for the Determination of Erosive Processes on Sandy Beaches. J. Coast. Res. 29, 1710\u0026ndash;1714. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26491036.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndr\u0026eacute;s, M., Barrag\u0026aacute;n, J.M., Scherer, M., 2018. Urban centres and coastal zone definition: Which area should we manage? Land Use Policy 71, 121\u0026ndash;128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.038.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrew, N.L., Bright, P., De la Rua, L., Teoh, S.J., Vickers, M., 2019. Coastal proximity of populations in 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories. PLoS One 14, e0223249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223249.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsmus, M.L., Nicolodi, J., Scherer, M.E.G., Gianuca, K., Costa, J.C., Goersch, L., Villwock, A., 2018. Simples para ser \u0026uacute;til: base ecossist\u0026ecirc;mica para o gerenciamento costeiro. Desenv. Meio Ambient. 44. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v44i0.5497.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsmus, M.L., Nicolodi, J., Anello, L.S., Gianuca, K., 2019. The risk to lose ecosystem services due to climate change: A South American case. Ecol. Eng. 130, 233\u0026ndash;241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.12.030.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBa\u0026iacute;a, L.B., Ranieri, L.A., Ros\u0026aacute;rio, R.P., 2021. An\u0026aacute;lise multitemporal da varia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da linha de costa em praias estuarinas de macromar\u0026eacute; na Amaz\u0026ocirc;nia Oriental. Geoci\u0026ecirc;ncias 40, 231\u0026ndash;244. https://doi.org/10.5016/geociencias.v40i1.13470. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaptista, P., Cunha, T., Bernardes, C., Gama, C., Ferreira, O., Dias, A., 2011. A precise and efficient methodology to analyse the shoreline displacement rate. J. Coast. Res. 27, 223\u0026ndash;232. https://doi.org/10.2112/09-1187.1. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbier, E.B., 2015. Climate change impacts rural poverty in low-elevation coastal zones. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 165, A1\u0026ndash;A13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.05.035.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodrigues, W. B. 2025. Transforma\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es na paisagem das fal\u0026eacute;sias de Icapu\u0026iacute;: press\u0026otilde;es do turismo e da expans\u0026atilde;o imobili\u0026aacute;ria (Trabalho de Conclus\u0026atilde;o de Curso, Universidade Estadual do Cear\u0026aacute;). Universidade Estadual do Cear\u0026aacute;. http://siduece.uece.br/siduece/trabalhoAcademicoPublico.jsf?id=118020 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoak, E.H., Turner, I.L., 2005. Shoreline definition and detection: a review. J. Coast. Res. 21, 688\u0026ndash;703. https://doi.org/10.2112/03-0071.1. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorsje, B.W., van Wesenbeeck, B.K., Dekker, F., Paalvast, P., Bouma, T.J., van Katwijk, M.M., de Vries, M.B., 2011. How ecological engineering can serve coastal protection. Ecol. Eng. 37, 113\u0026ndash;122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.027.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurger, J., Gochfeld, M., Pittfield, T., Jeitner, C., 2016. Perceptions of climate change, sea level rise, and possible consequences relate mainly to self-valuation of science knowledge. Energy Power Eng. 8, 250\u0026ndash;262. https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2016.85024. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarvalho, A.M., Maia, L.P., Dominguez, J.M.L., 2007. A deriva e o transporte litor\u0026acirc;neo de sedimentos no trecho entre Cumbuco e Mat\u0026otilde;es\u0026ndash;costa noroeste do estado do Cear\u0026aacute;. Arq. Cienc. Mar. 40, 43\u0026ndash;51. http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/53889 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCear\u0026aacute;, Superintend\u0026ecirc;ncia Estadual do Meio Ambiente, 2016. Reestrutura\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o e atualiza\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do mapeamento do projeto Zoneamento Ecol\u0026oacute;gico-Econ\u0026ocirc;mico do Cear\u0026aacute; \u0026ndash; zona costeira e unidades de conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o costeiras. Relat\u0026oacute;rio final de caracteriza\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o ambiental e dos mapeamentos. SEMACE, Fortaleza. https://www.semace.ce.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2016/12/RELAT\u0026Oacute;RIO-MAPEAMENTO-CAPACIDADE-DE-SUPORTE.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChacanza, M.S., Almeida, N.M., Freire, G.S.S., Silva Neto, C. \u0026Acirc;., Abreu Neto, J.C., Jalane, O.I., 2022. An\u0026aacute;lise da varia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da linha de costa no trecho entre as praias de Peroba e Redonda no munic\u0026iacute;pio de Icapu\u0026iacute;-Cear\u0026aacute;, Brasil, a partir de imagens de sat\u0026eacute;lite aplicando o DSAS. Geoci\u0026ecirc;ncias 41, 377\u0026ndash;396. https://doi.org/10.5016/geociencias.v41i04.16718.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChacanza, M.S., Almeida, N.M. de, Freire, G.S.S., Neto, C. \u0026Acirc;ngelo da S., Medeiros, M.E.M., Freires, E.V., Silva, M.T. da, 2024. Vulnerabilidade costeira no trecho entre as praias de Peroba e Redonda no munic\u0026iacute;pio de Icapu\u0026iacute;-Cear\u0026aacute;, Brasil: Coastal vulnerability in the stretch between beaches of Peroba and Redonda in the municipality of Icapu\u0026iacute;-Cear\u0026aacute;, Brazil. Rev. Geoci\u0026ecirc;ncias do Nordeste 10, 414\u0026ndash;425. https://doi.org/10.21680/2447-3359.2024v10n1ID31738. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheong, S.M., Silliman, B., Wong, P.P., Van Wesenbeeck, B., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., 2013. Coastal adaptation with ecological engineering. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 787\u0026ndash;791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1854.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, J.R. (Ed.), 1996. Coastal zone management handbook. CRC Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, J.A.G., Masselink, G., Coco, G., Short, A.D., Castelle, B., Rogers, K., Jackson, D.W., 2020. Sandy beaches can survive sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 993\u0026ndash;995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00934-2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrea, I.C.S., 2024. Mudan\u0026ccedil;as clim\u0026aacute;ticas: impacto, mitiga\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o e adapta\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/272398 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCristiano, S.C., Pfuetzenreuter, A., Lima, F.A. da.V., Sardinha, G.D., Nicolodi, J.L., Camargo, J.M., Fischer, L.O., Mattos, M.P. de S., Scherer, M., Teixeira, M. de M., Costa, M.F., Corraini, N., Gon\u0026ccedil;alves, R.K., Kerber, I.K.G., Souza, V., Da Silva, B.V., 2022. Municipaliza\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da gest\u0026atilde;o de praias mar\u0026iacute;timas brasileiras. In: Souto, R.D. (Ed.), Gest\u0026atilde;o ambiental e sustentabilidade em \u0026aacute;reas costeiras e marinhas: conceitos e pr\u0026aacute;ticas, vol. 2. Zenodo, Rio de Janeiro, 533\u0026ndash;563. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6679063 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrowell, M., Leatherman, S.P., Buckley, M.K., 1991. Historical shoreline change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. J. Coast. Res. 7, 839\u0026ndash;852.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Gouveia Souza, C.R., 2009. A eros\u0026atilde;o costeira e os desafios da gest\u0026atilde;o costeira no Brasil. Rev. Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira Integr. 9, 17\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Oliveira, M.R.L., Nicolodi, J.L., 2012. A gest\u0026atilde;o costeira no Brasil e os dez anos do Projeto Orla. Uma an\u0026aacute;lise sob a \u0026oacute;tica do poder p\u0026uacute;blico. Rev. Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira Integr. 12, 91\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDewez, T.J.B., Leroux, J., Morelli, S., 2016. Cliff collapse hazard from repeated multicopter UAV acquisitions: return on experience. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XLI-B5, 805\u0026ndash;811. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B5-805-2016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHumphrey, S., Burbridge, P., Blatch, C., 2000. US lessons for coastal management in the European Union. Mar. Policy 24, 275\u0026ndash;286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhakhim, N., Kurniawan, A., Pranowo, W.S., Khasanah, E.U., Halilintar, P., 2024. Shoreline morphological change prognostic model based on spatiotemporal framework imagery data on the Northern Coast of Java, Indonesia. Kuwait J. Sci. 51 (4): 100274. ISSN 23074108. https://ir.lib.ugm.ac.id/id/eprint/10681 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLacerda Barros, E., 2018. Eros\u0026atilde;o costeira no litoral do munic\u0026iacute;pio de Icapu\u0026iacute;-CE na \u0026uacute;ltima d\u0026eacute;cada: causas, consequ\u0026ecirc;ncias e perspectivas futuras. Tese (Doutorado em Ci\u0026ecirc;ncias Marinhas Tropicais), Instituto de Ci\u0026ecirc;ncias do Mar, Universidade Federal do Cear\u0026aacute;, Fortaleza.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLacerda Barros, E.., Morais, J.O., Pinheiro, L. de S., 2020. An\u0026aacute;lise dos Indicadores do Processo Erosivo no Litoral do Munic\u0026iacute;pio de Icapu\u0026iacute;, Cear\u0026aacute;, Nordeste do Brasil. REDE: Revista Eletr\u0026ocirc;nica do Prodema, 14(1), 69\u0026ndash;86. https://doi.org/10.22411/rede2020.1401.05 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLacerda Barros, E., Paula, D.P., Guerra, R.G.P., Santos, J.O., 2021. Erosion and coastal structures in Brazilian metropolises: The case of Fortaleza and its inequalities. In: Singh, R.B., et al. (Eds.), Practices in Regional Science and Sustainable Regional Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2221-2_6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLacerda Barros, E., Pinheiro, L. de S., Guerra, R.G.P., Moura, F.J.M. de, Paula, D.P. de, Neto, A.R.X., Leisner, M.M., Morais, J.O. de, 2024a. Shoreline change and coastal erosion: An analysis of long and short-term alterations and mitigation strategies on the coast of Icapu\u0026iacute;, Northeast Brazil. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 25, 4. https://doi.org/10.20502/rbg.v25i4.2604.``\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLacerda Barros, E., Oliveira, M.M.N. de, Neto, A.X., Guerra, R.P.G., Moura, F.JM. de, Moura, F.M. de, Morais, J.O. de, Pinheiro, L., 2024b. Sedimentological patterns of the beach-inner continental shelf system of Icapu\u0026iacute;, CE (NE-Brazil). Rev. Geoci\u0026ecirc;nc. Nord. 10, 2, 36\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.21680/2447-3359.2024v10n2ID32257. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawrence, J., Bell, R., Blackett, P., Stephens, S., Allan, S., 2018. National guidance for adapting to coastal hazards and sea-level rise: Anticipating change, when and how to change pathway. Environ. Sci. Policy 82, 100\u0026ndash;107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.012 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeatherman, S.P., 2003. Shoreline change mapping and management along the U.S. East Coast. J. Coast. Res. 38, 5\u0026ndash;13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25736596 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeisner et al., (2024). UAV remote sensing applications in beach-cliff system monitoring of morphodynamic processes. Mercator, Fortaleza. v.23, p. e23025. https://doi.org/10.4215/rm2024.e23025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeisner, M.M., de Paula, D.P., Alves, D.C.L., da Guia Albuquerque, M., de Holanda Bastos, F., Vasconcelos, Y.G., 2023. Long‐term and short‐term analysis of shoreline change and cliff retreat on Brazilian equatorial coast. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 48, 14, 2987\u0026ndash;3002. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5668.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeite, L.H.J., Almeida, N.A., 2023. An\u0026aacute;lise espa\u0026ccedil;o-temporal e modelagem preditiva da linha de costa do estado do Cear\u0026aacute;. Geoci\u0026ecirc;ncias 42, 3, 419\u0026ndash;436. https://doi.org/10.5016/geociencias.v42i3.17799. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLima, J.C., Lima, R.J.R., Barros, E.L., Paula, D.P. de, 2019. An\u0026aacute;lise multitemporal da variabilidade da linha de costa do litoral do munic\u0026iacute;pio de Caucaia, Cear\u0026aacute;, Brasil. Rev. Casa Geogr. Sobral (RCGS) 21, 2, 864\u0026ndash;884. https://doi.org/10.35701/rcgs.v21n2.542. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLv, Y., Li, W., Wen, J., Xu, H., Du, S., 2021. Population pattern and exposure under sea level rise: low elevation coastal zone in the Yangtze River Delta, 1990\u0026ndash;2100. Climate Risk Manag. 33, 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100348\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoizidou, X.I., Orthodoxou, D.L., Loizides, I.M., Petsa, D., Anzidei, M., 2024. Adapting to sea level rise: Participatory, solution-oriented policy tools in vulnerable Mediterranean areas. Environ. Syst. Decis. 44, 1, 126\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09910-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuijendijk, A., Hagenaar, G., Ranasinghe, R., Baart, F., Donchyts, G., Aarninkhof, S., 2018. The State of the World\u0026rsquo;s Beaches. Sci. Rep. 8, 6641. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24630-6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMachado, B.A., da Rocha, T.B., Fernandez, G.B., de Oliveira Filho, S.R., 2024. Din\u0026acirc;mica da linha de costa no flanco meridional do delta do rio Para\u0026iacute;ba do Sul entre 1954-2018: considera\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es sobre o fen\u0026ocirc;meno da eros\u0026atilde;o costeira em Atafona (RJ) e diferentes m\u0026eacute;todos de an\u0026aacute;lise. Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia, 25(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaia, L.P., 1998. Processo costeros y balance sedimentario ao lo largo de Fortaleza (NE-BRASIL): implicaciones para uma gesti\u0026oacute;n adecuada de la zona litoral. Tese de Doutorado, Programa Doctorado de Ciencias del Mar, Departamento d\u0026apos;Estratigrafia i Paleontologia, Universitat de Barcelona, 269 p.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarengo, J.A., Alves, L.M., Alvala, R., Cunha, A.P., Brito, S., Moraes, O.L., 2017. Climatic characteristics of the 2010-2016 drought in the semiarid Northeast Brazil region. Anais da Acad. Bras. Ci\u0026ecirc;ncias 90, 1973\u0026ndash;1985. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720170206. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcMichael, C., Dasgupta, S., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Kelman, I., 2020. A review of estimating population exposure to sea-level rise and the relevance for migration. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb398. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeireles, A.J.A., 1991. Mapeamento geol\u0026oacute;gico/geomorfol\u0026oacute;gico da plan\u0026iacute;cie costeira de Icapu\u0026iacute;, extremo leste do Estado do Cear\u0026aacute;. Diss. Mestrado, Centro de Tecnologia, Departamento de Geologia da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Recife, 178 p. il.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeireles, A.J.A., Santos, A.M.F., 2011. Evolu\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o geomorfol\u0026oacute;gica da plan\u0026iacute;cie costeira de Icapu\u0026iacute;, extremo leste do Cear\u0026aacute;, Nordeste do Brasil. Geografia (Rio Claro. Impresso) 36, 519\u0026ndash;534.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeireles, A.J.A., Lima, W.F., Silva, A.P., 2016. Atlas socioambiental: cartografia social das comunidades de Icapu\u0026iacute;. 1. ed. Fortaleza, CE: Editora Funda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Brasil Cidad\u0026atilde;o.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendon\u0026ccedil;a, F.J.B., Gon\u0026ccedil;alves, R.M., Awange, J., Silva, L.M.D., Greg\u0026oacute;rio, M.D.N., 2014. Temporal shoreline series analysis using GNSS. Boletim de Ci\u0026ecirc;ncias Geod\u0026eacute;sicas, 20, 701\u0026ndash;719. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1982-21702014000300040. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorais, J.O.D., 1981. Evolu\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o sedimentol\u0026oacute;gica da enseada de Mucuripe (Fortaleza-Cear\u0026aacute;\u0026ndash;Brasil). \u003cem\u003eArquivos de Ci\u0026ecirc;ncias do Mar\u003c/em\u003e, 21(1), 19-46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorais, J.O., Freire, G.S.S., Pinheiro, L.S., Souza, M.J., Carvalho, A.M., Pessoa, P.R.S., Oliveira, S.H.M., 2006. Cear\u0026aacute;: atlas de eros\u0026atilde;o. In: Muehe, D., (Org.), \u003cem\u003eEros\u0026atilde;o e prograda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do litoral brasileiro\u003c/em\u003e. Bras\u0026iacute;lia: MMA, pp. 476.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorais, J.O., Pinheiro, L.S., 2011. The effect of semi-aridity and damming on sedimentary dynamics in estuaries\u0026mdash;Northeastern region of Brazil. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Coastal Research\u003c/em\u003e, 64, 805-808.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorais, J.O., Pinheiro, L., Pessoa, P.R.S., Freire, G.S., Carvalho, A.M.D.E., Guerra, R.G.P., Lacerda Barros, E., Moura, F.J.M., 2018. Cear\u0026aacute;. In: Muehe, D., (Org.), \u003cem\u003ePanorama da Eros\u0026atilde;o Costeira no Brasil\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 1, pp. 261\u0026ndash;289. Bras\u0026iacute;lia: MMA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoreira, T.F., Albuquerque, M. da G., Espinoza, J.M. de A., de Paula, D.P., Leal Alves, D.C., Barros, E.L., da Concei\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, T.F., 2020. Estudo do Comportamento da Linha de Costa na Praia do Icara\u0026iacute; (Caucaia, Cear\u0026aacute;), a partir dos M\u0026eacute;todos Digital Shoreline Analysis System e do Pol\u0026iacute;gono de Mudan\u0026ccedil;a. Rev. Bras. Geogr. F\u0026iacute;s. 13(07), 3395\u0026ndash;3411. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v13.07.p3395-3411. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorton, R.A., Miller, T., Moore, L., 2005. Historical shoreline changes along the US Gulf of Mexico: A summary of recent shoreline comparisons and analyses. J. Coast. Res. 21(4), 704\u0026ndash;709. https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0230.1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuehe, D., 2001. Crit\u0026eacute;rios morfodin\u0026acirc;micos para o estabelecimento de limites da orla costeira para fins de gerenciamento. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 2(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuehe, D., Klumb-Oliveira, L., 2014. Deslocamento da linha de costa versus mobilidade praial. Quatern. Environ. Geosci. 5(2). https://doi.org/10.20396/sbgfa.v1i2017.2356 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNascimento, E.A.N., Andrade, A.C. da S., 2024. Din\u0026acirc;mica tempo-espacial da linha de costa associada a delta de mar\u0026eacute; vazante, Cacha Pregos e Ponta dos Garcez, Bahia, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 25(1). https://doi.org/10.20502/rbgeomorfologia.v25i1.2447 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicolodi, J.L., Petermann, R.M., 2010. Mudan\u0026ccedil;as Clim\u0026aacute;ticas e a Vulnerabilidade da Zona Costeira do Brasil: Aspectos ambientais, sociais e tecnol\u0026oacute;gicos. Revista de Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira Integrada-Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 10(2), 151\u0026ndash;177.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicolodi, J.L., Asmus, M.L., Polette, M., Turra, A., Seifert Jr, C.A., Stori, F.T., ... \u0026amp; Gon\u0026ccedil;alves, R.K., 2021. Critical gaps in the implementation of Coastal Ecological and Economic Zoning persist after 30 years of the Brazilian coastal management policy. Marine Policy, 128, 104470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104470 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicolodi, J.L., Cristiano, S., Schmitz, C., Silva, P., Concei\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, G., Santos, A., 2024. O Projeto de Gest\u0026atilde;o Integrada da Orla Mar\u0026iacute;tima (Projeto Orla) no Brasil. https://doi.org/10.48209/978-65-5417-404-2. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOliveira, M.R.L., Nicolodi, J.L., 2012. A Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira no Brasil e os dez anos do Projeto Orla. Uma an\u0026aacute;lise sob a \u0026oacute;tica do poder p\u0026uacute;blico. Rev. Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira Integrada 12(1), 91-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePang, T., Wang, X., Nawaz, R.A., Keefe, G., Adekanmbi, T., 2023. Coastal erosion and climate change: A review on coastal-change process and modeling. Ambio 52, 2034\u0026ndash;2052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01901-9. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaula, D. P. D., Dias, J. M. A., Ferreira, \u0026Oacute;., \u0026amp; Morais, J. O. (2013). High-rise development of the sea-front at Fortaleza (Brazil): Perspectives on its valuation and consequences. Ocean \u0026amp; coastal management, 77, 14-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaula, D. P. (2015). Eros\u0026atilde;o costeira e estruturas de prote\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o no litoral da regi\u0026atilde;o metropolitana de Fortaleza (Cear\u0026aacute;, Brasil). REDE - Revista Eletr\u0026ocirc;nica do PRODEMA, Fortaleza, v.9, n. 1, dez. ISSN 1982-5528. http://www.revistarede.ufc.br/rede/article/view/306 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaula, D. P., Lima, J. C., Barros, E. L., \u0026amp; Santos, J. D. O. (2021). Coastal erosion and tourism: the case of the distribution of tourist accommodations and their daily rates. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 14(3), 110-120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaula, D.P., Vasconcelos, Y., Sousa, F., 2022. Effects of beach width variability on recreational function: A case study on NE Brazil. Regional Studies in Marine Sciences 51, 102182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2022.102182. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinheiro, L.S., Morais, J.O., Maia, L.P., 2016. The Beaches of Cear\u0026aacute;. In: Short, A.D., Klein, A.H.F. (Eds.), Brazilian Beach Systems. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 1, 175\u0026ndash;199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30394-9_2. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuang, D.N., Ngan, V.H., Tam, H.S., Viet, N.T., Tinh, N.X., Tanaka, H., 2021. Long-Term Shoreline Evolution Using DSAS Technique: A Case Study of Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101124 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRangel-Buitrago, N., Anfuso, G., Williams, A.T., 2015. Coastal erosion along the Caribbean coast of Colombia: Magnitudes, causes and management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 114, 129\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.024 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003edos Santos, C.R., M. Polette \u0026amp; R. Stanziola Vieira. 2019. Gest\u0026atilde;o e Governan\u0026ccedil;a Costeira no Brasil: O Papel Do Grupo de Integra\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do Gerenciamento Costeiro (Gi-Gerco) e Sua Rela\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o com O Plano de A\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Federal (PAF) de Gest\u0026atilde;o da Zona Costeira. Revista Costas, 1(2): 135-162. doi: 10.26359/costas.0208\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantos, C.R., Polette, M., Pinto, A.C., Turra, A., Mazzer, A., Diegues, A.C.S., ... \u0026amp; da Silva, V.S., 2020. A Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira Integrada no Brasil: Hist\u0026oacute;rico, Processos e Desafios. Itaja\u0026iacute;, SC: Editora Univali, 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, M., Sanches, M., Negreiros, D.H.D., 2010. Gest\u0026atilde;o das zonas costeiras e as pol\u0026iacute;ticas p\u0026uacute;blicas no Brasil: um diagn\u0026oacute;stico. In: Manejo Costero Integrado y Pol\u0026iacute;tica P\u0026uacute;blica en Iberoam\u0026eacute;rica: Un diagn\u0026oacute;stico. Necesidad de Cambio. Red IBERMAR (CYTED), C\u0026aacute;diz, pp. 291\u0026ndash;336.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, M., 2013. Gest\u0026atilde;o de praias no Brasil: subs\u0026iacute;dios para uma reflex\u0026atilde;o. Rev. Gest\u0026atilde;o Costeira Integrada-J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 13, 3\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, M.E.G., T.S. Silva, M.L. Amsus, N.S. Gruber, R. Pinto de Lima, \u0026amp; M. Filet. 2020. Avalia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do Desenvolvimento do Sistema de Governan\u0026ccedil;a P\u0026uacute;blica Costeira Brasileira \u0026ndash; 2009 a 2018. Revista Costas vol esp., 1: 23-42. doi: 10.26359/costas.e102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmitz, C.M., Nicolodi, J.L., Gruber, N.L.S., 2023. Terrenos de marinha no Brasil: conceitos e evolu\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o hist\u0026oacute;rica no contexto do gerenciamento costeiro integrado. Rev. Dep. Geogr. 43, e190816\u0026ndash;e190816. https://doi.org/10.11606/eISSN.2236-2878.rdg.2023.190816 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchoonees, T., Gij\u0026oacute;n Manche\u0026ntilde;o, A., Scheres, B., Bouma, T.J., Silva, R., Schlurmann, T., Sch\u0026uuml;ttrumpf, H., 2019. Hard structures for coastal protection, towards greener designs. Estuaries and Coasts 42, 1709\u0026ndash;1729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00551-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeto, K.C., Fragkias, M., G\u0026uuml;neralp, B., Reilly, M.K., 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion. PLoS ONE 6, e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmall, C., Nicholls, R.J., 2003. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research 19, 584\u0026ndash;599. https://doi.org/10.2307/4299200. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, K., 2011. We are seven billion. Nature Climate Change 1, 331\u0026ndash;335. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1235.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e \u003c/span\u003eSoares, M.D.O., Campos, C.C., Carneiro, P.B.M., Barroso, H.S., Marins, R.V., Teixeira, C.E.P., Menezes, M.O.D., Pinheiro, L.S., Viana, M.B., Feitosa, C.V., S\u0026aacute;nchez-Botero, J.I., Bezerra, L.E.A., Rocha-Barreira, C.A., Matthews-Cascon, H., Matos, F.O., Gorayeb, A., Cavalcante, M.S., Moro, M.F., Rossi, S., Belmonte, G., Melo, V.M.M., Rosado, A.S., Ramires, G., Tavares, T.C.L., Garcia, T.M., 2021. Challenges and perspectives for the Brazilian semi-arid coast under global environmental changes. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19(3), 267\u0026ndash;278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpalding, M., McIvor, A., Tonneijck, F.H., Tol, S., van Eijk, P., 2014. Mangroves for Coastal Defence. Guidelines for Coastal Managers \u0026amp; Policy Makers. Wageningen: Wetlands International, 42 p.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Slobbe, E., de Vriend, H.J., Aarninkhof, S., Lulofs, K., de Vries, M., Dircke, P., 2013. Building with Nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Nat. Hazards 66, 1461\u0026ndash;1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0552-4. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVasconcelos, S.C., Ramos, I.A., Nunes, R.S., Santos, R.A., Figueiredo Jr, A.G., 2021. Din\u0026acirc;mica erosiva e progradacional das praias de Atafona e Grussa\u0026iacute; (RJ), 1954-2019. Rev. ANPEGE 17(33), 162\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.5418/ra2021.v17i33.11946 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVasconcelos, Y.G., Paula, D.P., Ferreira, O., Leisner, M.M., 2024. Contrasting short-term coastline behaviour after the construction of sinusoidal groins in NE Brazil. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 136, 104832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2024.104832 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVousdoukas, M.I., Ranasinghe, R., Mentaschi, L., et al., 2020. Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 260\u0026ndash;263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0697-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M., 2012. \u0026lsquo;Structure-from-Motion\u0026rsquo; photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300\u0026ndash;314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, A.T., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Pranzini, E., Anfuso, G., 2018. The management of coastal erosion. Ocean \u0026amp; Coastal Management 156, 4\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.022 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXimenes Neto, A.R., Lacerda Barros, E., Filho, R.P.L., Brindeiro, F.O.S., Paula, D.P., Morais, J.O., Pinheiro, L., 2024a. Late Holocene progradation in a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate beach ridges system, Northeast Brazil. Regional Studies in Marine Science 69, 103295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103295. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXimenes Neto, A.R., Pinheiro, L. de S., Almeida, N.M., Morais, J.O., Moura, F.J.M., Pessoa, P.R.S., Silva Filho, W.F., Carvalho, A.M., Soares, R.C., Lima, R.M., Filho, R.P.L., Barros, E.L., Marques, E.S., 2024b. Geologia e geomorfologia costeira e marinha (vers\u0026atilde;o estendida). In: Lacerda Barros, E., Ximenes Neto, A., Paula, D.P.P., Matos, F.O., Andrade, L., Bezerra, L.E.A., Menezes, M.O., Albuquerque, M.G., Sousa, P.H., Cavalcante, R.M., Rossi, S., Montalverne, T.C.F. (Eds.), Atlas Costeiro e Marinho do Estado do Cear\u0026aacute; 2023 (vers\u0026atilde;o estendida). 1st ed. Federa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o das Ind\u0026uacute;strias do Cear\u0026aacute; (FIEC), Fortaleza, v. 1, p. 1-1. ISBN 978-65-01-0624. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Coastal resilience, Climate adaptation, Coastal planning, Sustainable development, Coastal governance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7368390/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7368390/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the effectiveness of territorial management tools and public policies applied to the beaches of Redonda, Peroba, and Picos, in Icapu\u0026iacute;, Cear\u0026aacute;, in northeastern Brazil, analyzing the forms of occupation of a Beach-Cliff System and the impacts of coastal erosion. The methodology adopted combined documentary analysis, field surveys, and geoprocessing. A total of 168 legal landmarks between 1831 and 2024 were identified and analyzed through research in government databases and a literature review. The field survey included geospatial mapping using GNSS RTK and drones, enabling the collection of accurate data on occupation and coastal dynamics. The overlay of this information in a Geographic Information System (GIS) allowed the identification of violations of environmental protection zones and risk areas. The results indicate that more than 700 occupations are located within legal protection zones, exacerbating the impacts of erosion and the risks associated with cliff occupations. Praia da Redonda has the highest density of occupations, including buildings on cliffs. Praia da Peroba suffers from accelerated erosion and a lack of effective containment, while Praia de Picos presents increasing risks due to the proximity of buildings to the coastline. Poor enforcement and the difficulty of applying legal frameworks are critical challenges. Greater integration between government levels, coastal requalification, and strengthening of environmental governance are recommended. In addition, preventive measures, such as ecological zoning and the recovery of degraded areas, are essential to mitigate negative impacts and promote more balanced development. Raising awareness among the local population and strengthening environmental enforcement are essential to ensure the preservation of local ecosystems and the safety of coastal communities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"On the fringes of the law? Territorial Management and Legal Conflicts in Vulnerable Coastal Environments in Northeast Brazil","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-25 12:48:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7368390/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3b093834-530c-491f-836e-4adaa47bc88f","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-25T12:48:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-25 12:48:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7368390","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7368390","identity":"rs-7368390","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}