**2. Research Questions and Method**

This paper looks at the ways and degrees to which the right to coastal access is addressed. The overall research question is: How, or to what extent, do the laws, regulations, and policies in a selected group of countries address the public right to access in coastal areas? There are two secondary questions: What are the major differences across the countries studied? And are there any trends visible over time?

The questions were posed in relation to national-level laws and policies in 15 selected countries (Figure 1). Based on a set of shared parameters and evaluation criteria, we analyse the similarities and differences regarding coastal access rights. The analysis is applied to the legislation and "soft law" documents in each of the selected jurisdictions, and also relies on relevant academic publications. The information about each jurisdiction is based on an analytical report written by a leading academic expert (one or two per country) whom we invited to participate in an academic book *Regulating Coastal Zones: International Perspectives on Land Management Instruments*. We shall cite their individual work frequently in this paper. Our collaborators in the book project are: Anker (Denmark), Balla & Giannakourou (Greece), Carmon & Alterman (Israel), Correia & Calor (Portugal), Falco & Barbanente (Italy), Gurran (Australia), Jong & van Sandick (Netherlands), Marot (Slovenia), McElduff & Ritchie (UK), Prieur (France), Schachtner (Germany), Tarlock (USA), Ünsal (Turkey), Vallvé, Molina Alegre & Pellach (Spain), Xerri (Malta). Their contributions are cited throughout this paper. The country chapters were written according to a rigorously shared framework addressing a set of parameters drawn from the principles of ICZM [8]. Accessibility was only one among ten parameters discussed in the book.

Due to the quintessential role of beach access as an expression of the broader values underlying coastal zone management, we devote this entire paper to the topic. The paper goes beyond the information provided in the book in three ways: First, for this paper we conducted a broad survey of current international academic knowledge specifically about beach access. Second, we were able to expand and deepen the theoretical framework dedicated to analysing accessibility rights. Third, the scope of the comparative analysis of access rights presented here goes well beyond the limited space we were able to devote to it in the book ([9], pp. 408–415). For this paper, we undertook further "mining" of the factual and analytical information provided by each country-chapter authors and are thus able to present comparative analysis and evaluation well beyond what is provided in the book.

**Figure 1.** The sample countries and relevant supra-national law or policy.

In addition to looking at each country's individual laws and policies, we also look upwards, at international law about ICZM. This is a unique area of international legislation and supra-national "soft law" which exists only for a limited number of countries. We selected the research countries so that 13 of our 15 countries do come under international or supranational legislation or "soft law" (government policy documents). Figure 1 displays the selected countries divided into groups according to the relevance of supra-national legislation of policy.

In selecting the set of countries (or states) for the comparative analysis, we made sure there would be a sufficient common denominator to enable cross-country learning to some degree. At the same time, we wanted to represent enough diversity to reflect the legal complexity. The common denominator is that all selected countries have advanced economies and a reasonably working governance system (and most are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—OECD. The rules of membership in the OECD are that the candidate country has a well-developed economy and a reasonably working (democratic) government. One country, Malta, is not yet an OECD member). Of the 36 OECD member countries in 2020, our set in fact represents a hefty 40%. Our study does not include developing countries.

The discussion begins with a conceptual classification of categories of accessibility. These will serve as the framework for analysing beach access rights in law and practice across the selected countries. Next, we review the academic literature, in order to place our contribution within the current state of knowledge. The paper then introduces the relevant international law about ICZM and coastal access rights. The factual (legal regulatory) information in the paper draws on the findings from the 15-country reports analysis, where we point out similarities and difference and attempt to gauge emerging trends. Throughout, we try to point out potential distributive justice issues. These are usually not spelled out in ICZM guidelines nor in national coastal laws. We end by pointing out the major challenges that still await further legal and policy research, and action.
