Journal of Coastal Research SI 113 ***–*** Charlotte, North Carolina 2024

Safety Equipment for Swimming Beaches in Korea: Implications

for Protection Management
In Joo Yoon†*, David M. Connor‡, and Alan Blankenship§
† ‡ §
Korea Ocean Institute Coastal Hazards Institute Department of Geology
Yeongdo, Busan, Republic of Korea Florida Atlantic University University of the North Atlantic
Coral Beach, FL 33021, USA High Castle 10984, England, UK www.cerf-jcr.org

ABSTRACT

Yoon, I.J.; Connor, D.M., and Blankenship, A., 2024. Safety equipment for swimming beaches in Korea:
Implications for protection management. In: Phillips, M.R.; Al-Naemi, S., and Duarte, C.M. (eds.), Coastlines under
Global Change: Proceedings from the International Coastal Symposium (ICS) 2024 (Doha, Qatar). Journal of
Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 113, pp. ***–***. Charlotte (North Carolina), ISSN 0749-0208.

www.JCRonline.org Since December 2014, the Act on the Use and Management of Swimming Beaches of Korea has imposed
safety requirements on swimming beaches. Of 314 surveyed beaches in Korea, only 6% met current national
lifeboat requirements, while 24% met rescue boat requirements, 61%, life belt; 69%, watch tower; 67%,
swimming area buoy; and 84%, safety buoy or warning notice requirements. This study recommends a
classification system for beaches based on congestion and administrative capabilities. Based on this system,
safety equipment requirements were revised. Recommendations included exempting extra-small and small-
scale beaches from watch tower and rescue boat requirements and equipping medium-large beaches with an
additional rescue boat.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Recreational swimming, beach classification, beach management, water safety.

INTRODUCTION used for leisure activities such as swimming, sunbathing,

Recent studies on beaches can be categorized according to sandbathing, and sports, etc., and designated and notified by
several themes: beach profiling (Short, 2006); beach Article 6 of the Act.” According to Article 6, local governments
classification (Benedet, Finkl, and Klein, 2006) and evaluation in charge of a beach should decide whether to designate it as a
(Micallef, Williams, and Gallego Fernandez, 2011), including swimming beach based on status surveys every three years.
eco-labeling (Boevers, 2008) and beach awards (McKenna, Designation marks the beach as a place permitted for swimming,
Williams, and Cooper, 2011); user perception and expectation where a certain level of administrative services regarding water
(Lozoya, Sardá, and Jiménez, 2014; Quintela, Calado, and Silva, quality and safety are provided by the local governments.
2009), preference and choice (Botero et al., 2013; Maguire et The status survey components include the current status of
al., 2011), beach hazards (Klein et al., 2003) and safety water and land areas, along with adjacent buildings and
(McCool et al., 2009); beach capacity (Ribeiro, Ferreira, and appurtenances, and the level of utilization of facilities for
Silva, 2011) and bathing rate (Dwight et al., 2007); and so on. In convenience, safety, environment, and other services. As the
a broader approach, beach development and management (Ariza survey items are comprehensive and multidisciplinary, this study
et al., 2014) have also been considered, including through the narrowed its focus to safety equipment for swimming beaches.
use of video (Jiménez et al., 2007) and web (Turner and Safety management has been a particularly sensitive and critical
Anderson, 2007) technologies. Within this research area, beach issue since its principal agent shifted from the Korea Coast
safety is one of the most sensitive topics, as it is directly Guard (KCG) to local governments in the wake of the enactment
connected to people’s lives; thus, this topic is tightly intertwined of the Act. Now, local governments must maintain beach safety,
with beach management. including through equipment purchases, lifeguard recruitment,
drowning risk assessments, and so on, under the guidance of the
Background KCG. Therefore, this study aimed to review the current status of
Swimming at the beach is the most popular marine tourism local governments’ safety equipment management and to make
activity in the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.). To help maintain recommendations for future management, such as revised safety
beaches as safe and pleasant places for recreation and relaxation, requirements.
the Korean government has enforced the Act on the Use and
Management of Swimming Beaches since December 2014. METHODS
The Act defines a swimming or bathing beach as “a bathing In this study, a survey was used to determine the level of local
place, natural or artificial, consisting of the water and land areas, governments’ preparation of safety equipment for swimming
beaches. The survey began on May 7, 2015, and finished on
____________________ January 23, 2016. A questionnaire was designed to find the
DOI: 10.2112/JCR-SI113-XXX.1 received Day Month Year; accepted amount and type of safety equipment possessed by local
in revision Day Month Year.
governments in accordance with the Act. Guidance calls were
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
©
Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2024 then placed to local government offices in charge of beach

XX
 Yoon, Connor, and Blankenship
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

management before the survey was mailed to them. Surveys requirements, while 65% did not have a rescue boat at all.
were mailed out three times (in May, June, and July) to Additionally, 8% did not meet the requirements for the number
encourage completion. Up to eight additional guidance calls of boats, and for 7%, officials did not provide the number of
were also placed until officials gathered data and replied. yearly visitors.
The total number of swimming beaches ever opened in the
R.O.K. is 340. In 2015, 254 of these beaches were designated as
swimming beaches under the Act, leaving 86 beaches
undesignated. Data were received for 60 of the 86 undesignated
beaches, leaving 26 beaches without submitted data owing to
changes in management authorities and the absence of relevant
information. In total, data on 314 out of 340 total swimming
beaches were received.
According to the Act, swimming beaches should be equipped
with watch towers (height ≥ 3 m) and lifebelts around them.
There should be swimming area buoys indicating the boundaries
of swimming areas and safety buoys or warning notices when
dangers, such as a steep puddle or rock, are present. The Figure 1. Swimming beaches that meet the requirements for lifeboats
and rescue boats out of the 314 total beaches.
required number of lifeboats and/or rescue boats differs based
on the number of yearly visitors to the beach as described in the
Table 1.
Ratios differed greatly according to designation status. Figure
Table 1. Number of the required lifeboats and rescue boats. 2 shows that of the 254 designated beaches, 6 and 24% met the
requirements for lifeboats and rescue boats, respectively. Figure
Yearly Visitors Lifeboats Rescue Boats 3 shows that of the 60 undesignated beaches, 5 and 7% met
< 50,000 - 1 requirements for lifeboats and rescue boats, respectively. The
50,000 ~ 499,999 1 1 designated beaches were better equipped with lifeboats and,
500,000 ~ 1,000,000 1 3 particularly, rescue boats. On the other hand, the undesignated
> 1,000,000 2 4 ones especially tended to lack rescue boats.

RESULTS
The numbers of lifeboats, rescue boats, life belts, watch
towers, and swimming area notices at 314 swimming beaches
were analyzed. Generally, beaches with high numbers of visitors
tended to be designated, and their facilities were well equipped
by local governments. Therefore, the data were also analyzed
according to the designation status of beaches, in order to show
the gap present between designated beaches and undesignated
ones.

Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

According to the Act, a lifeboat refers to “a ship equipped
with a necessary person and equipment such as an emergency Figure 2. Swimming beaches that meet the requirements for lifeboats
medical technician and a respirator.” Thus, while rescue boats and rescue boats out of the 254 designated beaches.
are used to pull people out of the water before they drown,
lifeboats are equipped with tools to help those rescued regain
consciousness. According to the Act, swimming beaches with
more than 50,000 annual visitors should be equipped with a
lifeboat, and those with more than one million should be
equipped with two.
As shown in Figure 1, of the 314 swimming beaches in the
survey, only 6% met the lifeboat requirements of the Act. Of
those remaining, 93% did not have a lifeboat at all, while within
the remaining 1%, one beach did not have the required number
of lifeboats, and for the other beach, officials did not provide a
number of yearly visitors.
Every swimming beach should be equipped with at least one
rescue boat, according to the Act, and the required number
beyond that increases with yearly visitors. According to Figure
Figure 3. Swimming beaches that meet the requirements for lifeboats
1, however, only 20% of beaches met the rescue boat and rescue boats out of the 60 undesignated beaches.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 113, 2024

XX
 Safety Equipment for Swimming Beaches in Korea: Implications for Management
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Life Belts and Watch Towers

According to the Act, there should be life belts in every watch
tower whose height exceeds 3 m. However, collecting
information on watch towers’ heights and the locations of life
belts proved difficult. Thus, the possession of life belts and
existence of watch towers were used as substitute indicators of
beach safety in this study.
As shown in Figure 4, among the 314 swimming beaches,
61% were equipped with life belts and 69% with watch towers.
Figure 5 shows that of the 254 designated beaches, 63% were
equipped with life belts and 75% with watch towers. According
to Figure 6, of the 60 undesignated beaches, 52% were equipped
with life belts and 43% with watch towers. The designated Figure 6. Swimming beaches that meet the requirements for life belts
beaches were better equipped with life belts and, particularly, and watch towers out of the 60 undesignated beaches.
watch towers. On the other hand, the undesignated ones
especially tended to lack watch towers.
Swimming Area Notices
According to the Act, swimming area buoys should be
employed. In a dangerous area, safety buoys or warning notices
should also be used. Figure 7 shows that of the 314 swimming
beaches, 67% were equipped with swimming area buoys and
84% with safety buoys or warning notices. According to Figure
8, of the 254 designated beaches, 78% were equipped with
swimming area buoys and 90% with safety buoys or warning
notices. As shown in Figure 9, of the 60 undesignated beaches,
18% were equipped with swimming area buoys and 62% with
safety buoys. The designated beaches were better equipped with
swimming area buoys and, particularly, safety buoys or warning
notices. On the other hand, the undesignated ones especially
tended to lack swimming area buoys.
Figure 4. Swimming beaches that meet the requirements for life belts
and watch towers out of the 314 total beaches. Categories included those
yet to meet requirements and those that have met requirements. For both
categories of life belts and watch towers, those that have met the
requirements far exceeded those who are yet to meet the requirements
for total beaches.

Figure 7. Swimming beaches meeting the requirements for swimming

area notices out of the 314 total beaches.

Figure 5. Swimming beaches that meet the requirements for life belts
and watch towers out of the 254 designated beaches. Categories included
those yet to meet requirements and those that have met requirements.
For both categories of life belts and watch towers, those that have met
the requirements far exceeded those who are yet to meet the
requirements for total beaches. This output was similar to the results of
the total beaches and showed the large differences when comparing the
percentages of the categories.
 Yoon, Connor, and Blankenship
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 8. Swimming beaches meeting the requirements for swimming especially when daily visitors exceeded 10,000 and 50,000.
area notices out of the 254 designated beaches. Therefore, the numbers of daily visitors (such as 100, 2,000,
10,000, and 50,000) were used as thresholds of administrative
capabilities.
Table 2 describes the classification system based on those
thresholds of daily visitors. Swimming beaches were classified
into six groups: extra-small beaches (8%), small-scale beaches
(8%), medium-small beaches (61%), medium-large beaches
(14%), large-scale beaches (6%), and extra-large beaches (3%).
Table 3 outlines the recommendations for the safety
equipment requirements based on the scale of beaches. In these
recommendations, extra-small beaches with fewer than 50 daily
visitors are exempt from rescue boat requirements. Instead, a Jet
Ski is considered sufficient for them. Small beaches, whose
Figure 9. Swimming beaches meeting the requirements for swimming daily visitors range from 50 to 99, can be equipped with either a
area notices out of the 60 undesignated beaches. This output was similar Jet Ski or a rescue boat. For medium-small beaches, whose daily
to the results of the total beaches. visitors range from 100 to 1,999, no change is recommended to
the current requirements of the Act. Medium-large beaches,
whose daily visitors range from 2,000~9,999, should add one
DISCUSSION rescue boat over the Act’s requirement. For large and extra-large
The results indicate that the current status of safety equipment beaches, there is no change from the current requirements of the
depends on the designation status of swimming beaches. While Act.
designated beaches were better equipped to meet all the
Table 2. Classifications of the 295 swimming beaches open in 2015.
requirements, undesignated beaches especially lacked rescue
boats, watch towers and swimming area buoys. Undesignated
Beach Daily Visitors Percentage of Accumulated
beaches tended to have Jet Skis instead of rescue boats. Because Classification Beaches (%) Percentage of
watch towers are accompanied by hired lifeguards, entailing Beaches (%)
payroll costs, the undesignated beaches tended not to have a Extra-small < 50 8 8
watch tower. As people do not visit undesignated beaches often, Small 50 ~ 99 8 16
there tended to be only warning signs rather than signs clearly Medium-small 100 ~ 1,999 61 77
outlining the boundaries of safe swimming areas. Medium-large 2,000 ~ 9,999 14 91
Safety equipment requirements such as lifeboats and rescue Large 10,000 ~ 49,999 6 97
Extra-large > 50,000 3 100
boats should consider not only the administrative capabilities of
the managing office but also the number of daily visitors and
level of congestion at the beach. Although the Act currently
Table 3. Recommendations for the amount of safety equipment.
bases the required numbers of lifeboats and rescue boats on
yearly visitors, the number of daily visitors is a more appropriate
Beach Classification Daily Visitors Lifeboats Rescue Boats
criterion. As swimming beaches’ open periods range from 22 to
Extra-small < 50 - Jet Ski
102 days, the number of yearly visitors does not accurately Small 50 ~ 99 - 1 or Jet Ski
reflect daily congestion levels. Thus, the status of beach safety Medium-small 100 ~ 1,999 - 1
equipment should be assessed, referring to the number of daily Medium-large 2,000 ~ 9,999 1 2
visitors to the respective beach. This step will elucidate the Large 10,000 ~ 49,999 1 3
administrative capability thresholds for managing the required Extra-large > 50,000 2 4
safety equipment.
As the results of such considerations, the classification system However, recommended solutions for watch towers and
was applied to the 295 swimming beaches open in 2015. Only swimming area buoys are quite different. For watch towers,
these beaches, rather than all 314 surveyed beaches, were hiring lifeguards for those small beaches where people do not
included because the likelihood of the remaining 29 beaches visit often would waste financial and administrative resources.
reopening or being included in administrative boundaries in the Therefore, extra-small and small-scale beaches should be
near future was relatively low. exempted from having watch towers. Instead, they should be
It was not easy to divide beaches into groups based on clear better equipped with swimming area buoys so that people can be
criteria, as each beach was equipped for safety at a different more responsible for their own safety.
level. However, several points were relatively obvious. For
instance, swimming beaches with fewer than 100 daily visitors CONCLUSIONS
tended to lack most of safety equipment; whereas the beaches This paper introduces a case study on safety equipment
with more than 2,000 daily visitors tended to meet safety management for swimming beaches in the R.O.K. in the wake of
equipment requirements, except the presence of a lifeboat. With the enactment of the Act on the Use and Management of
more daily visitors, beaches tended to have more life belts, Swimming Beaches of Korea. As current requirements for safety
equipment are not based on status surveys, local governments

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 113, 2024

XX
 Safety Equipment for Swimming Beaches in Korea: Implications for Management
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
have faced difficulties in meeting them, owing to physical and
financial constraints. Therefore, this study surveyed local
government officials on the status of safety equipment and Analysis of hazards associated with sea bathing: Results of
recommended revisions to the requirements based on the five years work in oceanic beaches of Santa Catarina state,
congestion of beaches and governments’ administrative Southern Brazil. In: Klein, A.H.F; Finkl, C.W.; Roig, L.R.;
capabilities. Extra-small and small-scale beaches, most of which Santata, G.G.; Diehi, F.L., and Calliari, L.J. (eds.),
are undesignated, should be exempt from watch tower and Proceedings, Brazilian Symposium on Sandy Beaches:
rescue boat requirements. Medium-large beaches should be Morphodynamics, Ecology, Uses, Hazards and
equipped with an additional rescue boat over current Management. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue
requirements. No. 35, pp. 107-116.
Lozoya, J.P.; Sardá, R., and Jiménez, J.A., 2014. Users
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS expectations and the need for differential beach
The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Oceans and management frameworks along the costa brava: Urban vs.
Fisheries of the Republic of Korea for its administrative and natural protected beaches. Land use Policy, 38, 397-414.
financial support of the survey in this study. Maguire, G.S.; Miller, K.K.; Weston, M.A., and Young, K.,
2011. Being beside the seaside: Beach use and preferences
LITERATURE CITED among coastal residents of South-Eastern Australia. Ocean
Ariza, E.; Lindeman, K.C.; Mozumder, P., and Suman, D.O., and Coastal Management, 54(10), 781-788.
2014. Beach management in Florida: Assessing stakeholder McCool, J.; Ameratunga, S.; Moran, K., and Robinson, E., 2009.
perceptions on governance. Ocean and Coastal Taking a risk perception approach to improving beach
Management, 96, 82-93. swimming safety. International Journal of Behavioral
Benedet, L.; Finkl, C., and Klein, A., 2006. Morphodynamic Medicine, 16(4), 360-366.
classification of beaches on the Atlantic coast of Florida: McKenna, J.; Williams, A.T., and Cooper, J.A.G., 2011. Blue
Geographical variability of beach types, beach safety and flag or red herring: Do beach awards encourage the public
coastal hazards. In: Klein, A.H.F.; Finkl, C.W.; Sperb, to visit beaches? Tourism Management, 32(3), 576-588.
R.M.; Beaumord, A.C.; Diehl, F.L.; Barreto, A.; Abreu, Micallef, A.; Williams, A., and Gallego Fernandez, J., 2011.
J.G.; Bellotto, V.R.; Kuroshima, K.N.; Carvalho, J.L.B.; Bathing area quality and landscape evaluation on the
Resgalla, C., and Fernandes, A.M.R. (eds.), Proceedings, mediterranean coast of Andalucia, Spain. In: Micallef A.
8th International Coastal Symposium. Journal of Coastal (ed.), Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on the
Research, Special Issue No. 39, pp. 360-365. Management of Recreational Resources. Journal of
Boevers, J., 2008. Assessing the utility of beach ecolabels for Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 61, pp. 87-95.
use by local management. Coastal Management, 36(5), Quintela, A.; Calado, H., and Silva, C., 2009. Bathing users
524-531. perceptions and expectations of são miguel (azores) bathing
Botero, C.; Anfuso, G.; Williams, A.T.; Zielinski, S.; Da Silva, areas-a pilot study. In: Da Silva, C.P.; Vaz, B.; Abrantes,
C.P., and Cervantes, O., 2013. Reasons for beach choice: P., and Estanqueiro, R. (eds.), Proceedings, 10th
European and Caribbean perspectives. In: Conley, D.C.; International Coastal Symposium. Journal of Coastal
Masselink, G.; Russell, P.E., and O’Hare, T.J. (eds.), Research, Special Issue No. 56, pp. 1145-1149.
Proceedings, 12th International Coastal Symposium. Ribeiro, M.; Ferreira, J., and Silva, C., 2011. The sustainable
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, pp. carrying capacity as a tool for environmental beach
880-885. management. In: Furmanczyk, K.; Giza, A., and Terefenko,
Dwight, R.H.; Brinks, M.V.; Sharavana Kumar, G., and P. (eds.), Proceedings, 11th International Coastal
Semenza, J.C., 2007. Beach attendance and bathing rates Symposium. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No.
for Southern California beaches. Ocean and Coastal 64, pp. 1411-1414.
Management, 50(10), 847-858. Short, A.D., 2006. Australian beach systems-nature and
Jiménez, J.; Osorio, A.; Marino-Tapia, I.; Davidson, M.; distribution. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(10), 11-27.
Medina, R., and Kroon, A., 2007. Beach recreation Turner, I.L. and Anderson, D.J., 2007. Web-based and ‘real-
planning using video-derived coastal state indicators. time’ beach management system. Coastal Engineering,
Coastal Engineering, 54(6), 507-521. 54(6), 555-565.
Klein, A.H.F.; Santana, G.; Diehl, F., and De Menezes, J., 2003.