Thank you! 😊
I chose option 2. I then spoke about how my decision was most sustainable because, socially, looking at Resource (whichever resource it was) then you undertand that the cove and surrounding area is used primarily for "scuba diving" and "leisure activities". By leaving the armour wall as it is, tourists and families who visit Mullion won't be disrupted by construction and therefore they can enjoy their trip.
Economically this was most sustainable because, even though there was a storm which whacked up a significant sum of over £250,000, this sum is, in fact, insignificant in comparison to spending £3 million on building a breakwater. Furthermore, the armour wall is predicted to last for up to 20-50 more years, so why waste money when it doesn't need replenishing yet?
Environmentally this allows biodiversity to remain in their habitats, it doesn't affect them. Also, if there's an endangered species living near Mullion, leaving the species there allows them to reproduce.
Disadvantages were a huge backlash socially if there was a huge storm which was to destroy the harbour wall. There was a population of over 2200 and so this could affect quality of life if residents are forced to move away. Economically this is also unsustainable because, on top of repair costs to the harbour armour, the council could have to pay fr repairing damage to the houses.
Now, my alternative option was cheeky, because I combined options 1 and 3 together to make a new option. My alternative sustainable option was to only choose to protect one area of Mullion and allow the other area to be eroded. This is sustainable because then The National Trust can focus on one area of the coastline and build on those sea defences and develop on them, whilst the other area of land being eroded by the sea can create new habitats for biodiversity.
What about you, what did you write?