COASTAL VULNERABILITY, RESILIENCE ANDADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE

Richard J.T. KleinKumulative Dissertation

COASTAL VULNERABILITY, RESILIENCE ANDADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE

Richard J.T. KleinKumulative Dissertation

This thesis has been submitted to the Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät of the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel in part-fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Dr. rer. nat. December 2002 Referent: Prof. Dr. Horst Sterr Ko-Referent: Prof. Dr. Ir. Pier Vellinga Cover photo: Cley-next-the-Sea, United Kingdom. Photograph taken by Richard Klein in June 1996.

This PhD thesis is dedicated to Michiel, Ma and Ruth. Thank you for your inspiration and love, for being there as long as it lasted. I wish I could share the joy of completion with you. You will always be in my heart.

iv

Preface and acknowledgements This thesis is the result of about eight years of sometimes more, sometimes less focused re-search on a subject that took a long time to be defined as the topic of a PhD. This thesis does not originate from a single, well-defined PhD project but rather combines and integrates re-sults of a number of different studies that at first seemed only loosely related at best. How-ever, some three years ago a common theme emerged, which also happened to be most timely in the scientific and policy debates on climate change. It is increasingly recognised that the concept of vulnerability to climate change encompasses more than the exposure and sensitivity of natural and human systems to potential impacts of climate change; it is also de-fined by the degree to which these systems can prepare for and respond to impacts. The common theme in my work of the past eight years has been the analysis of elements that, one way or another, determine or describe this latter part of vulnerability to climate change. My research has aimed to contribute to answering the question as to how coastal sys-tems and communities would and could respond to climate change and, in particular, how this response may be assessed as part of coastal vulnerability studies. The focus on coastal zones was not a conscious decision but it has turned out to be a fortunate one, as coastal zones provide an ideal “laboratory” for developing and testing new conceptual ideas. Com-pared to other effects of climate change, sea-level rise is relatively straightforward in that the direction of change is known. Moreover, it is a fairly certain consequence of climate change, which has well-documented analogues in recent geological history. For the same reason that this thesis did not start off from a clearly defined question or hypothesis it does not have well-defined results or conclusions. This thesis is to be considered very much as “work in progress” and indeed, a range of initiatives are currently being devel-oped that use concepts and information presented in this thesis and elsewhere as a starting point or framework for their analysis. I find it very exciting to see the way in which my work contributes to the development of what have been referred to as “second-generation vulner-ability studies”, also in sectors other than coastal zones. Second-generation vulnerability studies promise to provide a much stronger link between science and policy than the previous generation of studies could. The research presented in this thesis has been conducted at the following three institutes: the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the School of En-vironmental Sciences of the University of East Anglia and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In addition, I have benefited from the many interactions with the Flood Hazard Research Centre of Middlesex University. I am proud not only that I have worked with some of the brightest minds in the field but also that some close friendships have developed. I hope there will be many more opportunities to work together and cultivate our friendships. I am very grateful to everybody who, over the course of the past eight years, has stimu-lated me to do the work that I have done and convinced me not to be discouraged by the ini-tial lack of focus, the difficulties in securing research funding or the fact that my work does not have an empirical basis. I would like to mention the following people in particular. Pier Vellinga introduced me to the work on climate change and coastal zones, particu-larly in relation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pier motivated me to de-velop and explore my initial ideas and gave me the courage to share them with a network of distinguished yet approachable international scientists. Robert Nicholls in particular has been a wonderful sounding board for my ideas, always willing to discuss them, preferably over a drink. These discussions often turned out to be a fruitful basis for joint publications and have thus been instrumental in shaping my thoughts and developing the focus I needed to complete my PhD. Ian Bateman and Kerry Turner have added an environmental economics dimension to my work and have generated my strong interest in interdisciplinary research. I am grateful for the time they were willing to invest in me and I cherish the memories of my stay in Norwich.

v

Perhaps without knowing it, Richard Tol, by being his provocative self, has always stimu-lated and in a way empowered me to pursue my own ideas. Whilst at times we disagree about the use of different analytical methods and the interpretation of results, I greatly value our mutual respect and willingness to learn from each other. I would like to thank John Schelln-huber and Carlo Jaeger for being so supportive of my work and for encouraging me to finalise this thesis. They have created a highly stimulating working environment in which I have the opportunity to continue and expand my research on environmental vulnerability and adapta-tion. Finally, I could not have wished for a better PhD supervisor than Horst Sterr, whose con-structive criticism is certainly not the reason why it took me longer than anticipated to com-plete my PhD. I thank him for his motivating style of supervision and, above all, his patience. I am also grateful to all those with whom I have had the privilege and pleasure to work over the past eight years and who have been willing to share their ideas so as to help me to develop mine. These include Neil Adger, Joe Alcamo, James Aston, Pieter van Beukering, Luitzen Bijlsma, Luke Brander, Nick Brooks, Earle Buckley, Ian Burton, Michele Capobianco, Alexander Carius, Brian Challenger, Dave Dokken, Peter Doktor, Kees Dorland, Tom Downing, Kris Ebi, Bud Ehler, Frank Eierdanz, Jan Feenstra, Hasse Goosen, Poul Grashoff, Dolf de Groot, Joyeeta Gupta, John Handmer, Madeleen Helmer, Frank Hoozemans, Cees Hulsbergen, Saleemul Huq, Venugopalan Ittekkot, Roger Jones, Arun Kashyap, Mick Kelly, Philipp Knill, Sari Kovats, Alcira Kreimer, Dörthe Krömker, Onno Kuik, Kavi Kumar, Liza Leclerc, Neil Leary, Rik Leemans, Bo Lim, Holger Liptow, Don MacIver, Marcel Marchand, Ajay Mathur, Elisabeth Mausolf, Roger McLean, Bettina Menne, Bert Metz, Ben Mieremet, Nobuo Mimura, Robbert Misdorp, Richard Moss, Isabelle Niang-Diop, Leonard Nurse, Brett Orlando, Gualbert Oude Essink, Jean Palutikof, Anand Patwardhan, Stephen Peake, Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Martha Perdomo, John Pernetta, Olga Pilifosova, Sachooda Ragoonaden, Agustin Sánchez-Arcilla, Ravi Sharma, Barry Smit, Joel Smith, Marcel Stive, Roger Street, Dennis Tänzler, Ferenc Tóth, Nas-sos Vafeidis, Bert van der Valk, Laura Van Wie-McGrory, Roda Verheyen, Jan Vermaat, Claudio Volonté, Richard Warrick, Robert Watson, Gary Yohe, as well as all my colleagues in Potsdam. Of my colleagues in Potsdam I would particularly like to thank Johann Grüneweg for translat-ing the summary of this thesis into German and Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik for scanning the pub-lished papers that form the core of this thesis. Financial support for my work has been kindly provided by the Dutch and German govern-ments, the British Council, the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Disaster Management Facility of the World Bank, Delft Hydraulics, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, the Institute for Environmental Studies at the Vrije Univer-siteit Amsterdam and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Finally, I would like to thank my friends for putting up with me, for supporting me and for being there when it mattered. You know who you are. I also thank my father and sister for being the best father and sister I have. And I thank Kate for being at the right place at the right time and for being there ever since. Poppy, I love you to bits! This PhD thesis is dedicated to three people who I miss every day and without whom I would not have been the person I am today. Death and divorce hurt, yet they can never erase the wonderful memories I have. Michiel, Ma, Ruth, this is for you. Potsdam, December 2002 Richard Klein

vi

vii

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. Sir Isaac Newton

viii

ix

Table of contents Preface and acknowledgements iv

Table of contents ix

Klein, R.J.T., 2002: Coastal vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to climate change: an introductory overview.

1

Klein, R.J.T. and R.J. Nicholls, 1999: Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio, 28(2), 182–187.

32

Klein, R.J.T., M.J. Smit, H. Goosen and C.H. Hulsbergen, 1998: Resilience and vulnerability: coastal dynamics or Dutch dikes? The Geographical Journal, 164(3), 259–268.

39

Klein, R.J.T. and I.J. Bateman, 1998: The recreational value of Cley Marshes Nature Reserve: an argument against managed retreat? Water and Environmental Management, 12(4), 280–285.

50

Smit, B., I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein and J. Wandel, 2000: An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climatic Change, 45(1), 223–251.

57

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls and N. Mimura, 1999: Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC Technical Guidelines be applied? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3–4), 239–252.

87

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston and E.N. Buckley, 2001: Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research, 17(3), 531–543.

103

Klein, R.J.T., 2002: Synthesis and next steps. 117

Summary 127

Deutsche Zusammenfassung 129

Biography 133

1

Coastal Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change: An Introductory Overview Richard J.T. Klein

1. Introduction The work presented in this PhD thesis has not been carried out within a single, well-defined project. Instead, it integrates the results of a number of studies conducted from 1994 on-wards, each of which had different clients and objectives. The common theme of the studies has been the description and analysis of elements that determine how coastal systems and communities would and could respond to climate change and, in particular, how this response may be assessed as part of coastal vulnerability studies. Coastal zones are amongst the most dynamic natural environments on earth, providing a range of goods and services that are essential to human social and economic well-being. Coastal zones represent the narrow transitional zone between the world’s land and oceans, characterised by highly diverse ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves, beaches, dunes and wetlands. Many people have settled in coastal zones to take advantage of the range of opportunities for food production, transportation, recreation and other human activities pro-vided here. A large part of the global human population now lives in coastal areas: estimates range from 20.6 per cent within 30 km of the sea to 37 per cent in the nearest 100 km to the coast (Cohen et al., 1997; Gommes et al., 1998; Nicholls and Small, 2002). In addition, a con-siderable portion of global economic wealth is generated in coastal zones (Turner et al., 1996). Many coastal locations exhibit a growth in population and income higher than their na-tional averages (Carter, 1988; WCC’93, 1994), as well as substantial urbanisation (Nicholls, 1995a). In the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Bijlsma et al. (1996) noted that climate-related change in coastal zones represents potential additional stress on systems that are already under intense and growing pressure. The IPCC concluded that although the potential impacts of climate change by themselves may not always pose the greatest threat to natural coastal systems, in conjunction with other stresses they could become a serious issue for coastal societies, particularly in those places where the resilience of the coast has been reduced. This conclusion has been the main moti-vation behind my research, which has aimed at better understanding the vulnerability, resil-ience and adaptation of coastal zones in the face of climate change. The insights gained in the various studies have been the basis of a number of peer-re-viewed and published papers, six of which form the core of this PhD thesis. Each of these pa-pers explores different aspects of coastal vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to climate change. This introductory chapter provides the context for coastal vulnerability assessment by giving an overview of current stresses in coastal zones, as well as of the possible effects of climate change on coastal sustainability. It also explores how the three concepts that form the basis of this PhD thesis (vulnerability, resilience and adaptation) have been defined and applied in other disciplines. Finally, this chapter defines the research objectives pursued in this thesis, outlines the methodological approach taken and introduces the six papers. Following the six peer-reviewed and published papers, a synthesis chapter aims to draw conclusions in the light of existing and emerging scientific and policy needs. The synthesis chapter also provides an agenda for research that can build on the findings of this PhD thesis.

2. Sustainable development and global change in coastal zones This PhD thesis focuses on coastal vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to climate change. However, climate change is not the only challenge to sustainable development in coastal zones. Other developments taking place on a global scale also have a pervasive but immedi-ate impact on coastal sustainability. These developments are associated with the many eco-

2

nomic opportunities offered by natural coastal systems. They include overexploitation of coastal resources, pollution, increasing nutrient fluxes, decreasing freshwater availability, sediment starvation and urbanisation. These non-climatic changes affect the natural capacity of coastal systems to cope with stresses such as climate change and therefore need to be con-sidered along with the potential impacts of climate change on coastal zones. All natural coastal systems are—to varying degrees—able to offset the effects of human intervention. However, many coastal areas have been so heavily modified and intensively de-veloped that their natural resilience to further changes has been substantially reduced (see Section 4.2). In many places, unsustainable development of coastal resources has progres-sively increased vulnerability to both the natural dynamics associated with present-day cli-mate variability and anticipated impacts of global climate change.

2.1. Functions of natural coastal systems Natural coastal systems (comprising both the geomorphic and ecological components) support a variety of socio-economic activities, including tourism and recreation, exploitation of living and non-living resources (e.g., fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture and extraction of water, oil and gas), industry and commerce, infrastructure development (e.g., ports, harbours, bridges, roads and coastal defence works) and nature conservation. In addition, natural coastal sys-tems are crucial in safeguarding environmental quality. For example, they are important in assimilating waste, maintaining migration and nursery habitats—and thereby biodiversity—and providing protection against extreme events. Thus, human well-being depends directly or in-directly on the availability of environmental goods and services provided by natural coastal systems. In general terms, environmental functions (defined by De Groot (1992a) as the capacity of the natural environment to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs in a sus-tainable manner) can be categorised as regulation functions, user and production functions and information functions (De Groot, 1992a; Vellinga et al., 1994). Table 1 gives an overview of all environmental functions identified in the literature. Most of these functions are rele-vant to coastal zones. The relative importance of these functions for a given coastal area de-pends on the ecological characteristics, socio-economic circumstances and management ob-jectives of the area in question. Regulation functions �� Protection against harmful cosmic influences; �� Regulation of the local and global energy balance; �� Regulation of the chemical composition of the atmosphere; �� Regulation of the chemical composition of the oceans; �� Regulation of the local and global climate; �� Regulation of runoff, flood prevention; �� Water catchment, groundwater recharge; �� Prevention of soil erosion, sediment control; �� Formation of topsoil, maintenance of soil fertility; �� Fixation of solar energy, biomass production; �� Storage and recycling of organic matter; �� Storage and recycling of nutrients; �� Storage and recycling of human waste; �� Regulation of biological control mechanisms; �� Maintenance of migration and nursery habitats; �� Maintenance of biological (and genetic) diversity.

Information functions �� Aesthetic information; �� Spiritual and religious information; �� Historic information; �� Cultural and artistic inspiration; �� Scientific and educational information.

User and production functions �� Providing space and a suitable substrate for:

– human habitation and (indigenous) settlements; – cultivation (crop growing, animal husbandry, aquaculture); – energy conversion; – transportation and navigation; – recreation and tourism; – nature protection;

�� Production of: – oxygen; – water (for drinking, irrigation, industry, etc.); – food and nutritious drinks; – genetic resources; – medicinal resources; – raw materials for clothing and household fabrics; – raw materials for building, construction and industrial use; – biochemicals (other than fuels and medicines); – fuel and energy; – fodder and fertiliser; – ornamental resources.

Table 1 — Functions of the biosphere (adapted from De Groot, 1992a). Regulation functions are crucial in safeguarding environmental quality. They include the regulation of erosion and sedimentation patterns, which helps to prevent floods, the regula-tion of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the oceans, which helps to control

3

pollution, and the maintenance of migration and nursery habitats, which sustains biological diversity. Thus, many natural and semi-natural ecosystems play a fundamental part in the regulation of essential processes that contribute to the maintenance of a healthy environ-ment and the long-term stability of the biosphere. In coastal zones, regulation functions are particularly important in maintaining resilience in the face of natural hazards such as storm surges (Nicholls and Branson, 1998) and epidemiological threats such as those posed by harm-ful algae blooms (Anderson and Garrison, 1997). User and production functions are essential in providing the many living and non-living resources that are utilised by society. These functions include the provision of space and a suitable substrate for human habitation, agriculture, recreation and tourism and the produc-tion of, among other things, food, raw materials, fuel and energy. Coastal resources are often of great commercial importance, yet their full exploitation can cause multiple-use conflicts amongst diverse stakeholders (Goldberg, 1994; Vallega, 1996). Information functions relate to the part that nature plays in meeting human intellectual and emotional needs. The scientific, historical, spiritual and aesthetic information derived from coastal ecosystems provides unique opportunities for cognitive development and emo-tional enrichment. In addition, the awareness of human society being part of a larger system forms an important basis for the notion that nature, including coastal ecosystems, also has a value of its own, independent of human needs or perceptions (Turner, 1988). Sustainable development in coastal zones is only attained when it enables the coastal system to self-organise, that is, to perform all its potential functions without adversely af-fecting other natural or human systems (cf. Klein et al., 1998). However, coastal zones have increasingly been subjected to the unsustainable use and unrestricted development of land and resources, with the sole aim of maximising the financial benefits provided by user and production functions. This has resulted in an increasingly large area of cultivated and man-aged systems where the performance of one particular function is overexploited. Overexploitation of user and production functions results not only in the depletion of the resource stock or flow provided but also in the inability of other functions to perform to their full potential. The same applies when the capacity of regulation functions is exceeded, for example when coastal waters are polluted beyond their waste-assimilation capacity. Both forms of unsustainable development can inhibit or destroy the working of functions that are essential to the provision of resources that are valued less financially or to the maintenance of coastal resilience. This can ultimately result in the degradation of natural systems that provide protection against the sea, habitat for many species and food for many people. If, owing to internal or external stresses on the coastal system, one or more of the de-sired functions cannot perform to their full potential, conflicts could arise. For example, if mangroves are polluted beyond their filtering capacity or logged and cleared in an unsustain-able manner, this will be at the expense of processes that enable fish to breed and be caught in the same area and hence of those depending on fisheries (e.g., Gilbert and Janssen, 1998). The maintenance of all functions at a sustainable level would provide higher economic returns over a longer period of time. Traditionally, coastal zone management has been described as a process to handle con-flicts between the various (potential) users of increasingly scarce coastal resources and to address current problems that result from stakeholders pursuing their own sectoral interests (e.g., Cicin-Sain, 1993; Post and Lundin, 1996; Vallega, 1996; Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). In other words, coastal zone management has focused strongly on conflicts stemming from the multiple uses of resources provided by user and production functions. The purpose of the following sections is to show that coastal zone management is also appropriate to tackle or anticipate issues that rely on the robust performance of the coastal system’s regulation functions. Such issues are typically associated with longer-term develop-ments that mostly occur on a larger, often global scale. These longer-term global develop-ments, often denoted as “global change”, include demographic trends and economic devel-opments, as well as human interference with global environmental systems such as climate. Before Section 3 discusses the implications of climate change for coastal zones, the following sections focus on demographic trends and economic developments.

4

2.2. Demographic trends There is a long history of human settlement in coastal zones, but until the twentieth century the level of disturbance to natural processes did not appear to be critical. During the twenti-eth century, urbanised coastal populations have been growing rapidly around the globe be-cause of the many economic opportunities and environmental amenities that coastal zones provide (Turner et al., 1996). Low-lying areas near coasts now have the largest concentra-tions of people on earth (Small and Cohen, 1999). The population in the “near-coastal zone” (defined as areas both within 100 m elevation and 100 km distance of the coast) in 1990 is es-timated at 1.2 billion (thousand million) (Nicholls and Small, 2002; see also Cohen et al., 1997 and Gommes et al., 1998). Nicholls and Small (2002) also showed that most of the near-coastal zone is sparsely inhabited, with the human population being concentrated in a few specific areas along the world’s coast. These areas correspond mainly to coastal plains in Europe and parts of Asia, and to a lesser extent to densely populated urban areas. Hence, there are wide variations in coastal populations amongst nations. In many small island nations, all land suitable for human habitation is coastal and in some large countries, most or all major urban centres are located near the coast (e.g., Australia). In other countries, such as Mexico, Colombia, Russia and Iran, many larger cities are found further inland, in spite of the countries’ long coastlines. The United Nations medium projection for population growth suggests that the world’s population will reach 7.2 billion by the year 2015, 7.9 billion by 2025 and 9.3 billion by 2050 (2000: 6.1 billion; UNPD, 2001). Growth rates in individual countries will be largely deter-mined by the country’s current demographic patterns and fertility rate. Age structures in most developing countries are such that during the coming decades greater numbers of peo-ple will come into their prime reproductive years than in industrialised countries. Further-more, fertility rates are generally higher in developing countries, albeit declining. As a result, all projected population growth until 2050 is expected to occur in the developing world (UNPD, 2001). Most of the population growth in developing countries will occur in urban settings and much of this will be concentrated in coastal zones, as has been the case in most industrialised countries. It is projected that by 2015 there will be 33 cities with a population of more than eight million (UNPD, 2001). As shown in Table 2, 21 of these megacities are located in coastal zones. This table, which is an update of the overviews provided by WCC’93 (1994) and Nicholls (1995a), also shows that seventeen of the 21 largest megacities are coastal and that with the exception of Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Osaka, Paris and Moscow all projected megacities are situated in developing countries. Continued growth of urban areas can be ex-pected after 2015, especially in Africa and Asia (UNEP, 2002), resulting in the development of additional coastal megacities to those shown in Table 2. Some care should be taken in interpreting the data presented in Table 2. A certain de-gree of subjectivity is inevitable in labelling a megacity as coastal, especially because there are no straightforward definitions of a coastal zone. São Paolo, for example, is not considered coastal because it is situated at an elevation of 800 metres above sea level. However, its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and the port of Santos has yielded benefits that would not have been available in places further inland (e.g., as a coffee trading capital). On the other hand, cities like Dhaka, Calcutta and Cairo are situated at some distance from the sea, yet in Table 2 they are considered coastal because of their deltaic setting. Other cities, such as Los Angeles, Seoul and Istanbul, have developed on coasts with steeper gradients and hence parts of their agglomerations extend outside the coastal plain. The predominant criterion to clas-sify a city as coastal in Table 2 is whether it has economic and geomorphic characteristics that are typically or exclusively coastal (e.g., sea port, deltaic or estuarine setting). Some coastal agglomerations with populations exceeding 8 million may have been omit-ted because of the dataset used for Table 2. These include Greater London in the United Kingdom and the Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou conurbation in China (Nicholls, 1995a). More dispersed agglomerations are not considered either, such as the Amsterdam-Brussels axis in The Netherlands and Belgium, the Osaka-Nagoya-Tokyo axis in Japan and ‘Megalopolis’ in the United States, which stretches over 600 km from Boston, MA to Washington, DC and has a collective population approaching 50 million. Such dispersed coastal agglomerations may also emerge in the developing world, such as from Accra, Ghana to Lagos, Nigeria, embracing parts of four countries.

5

Rank Agglomeration Country Population size (million) Expected growth (%)

Rank in 1975

Rank in 2000

1975 2000 2015 2000–2015 » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Tokyo Bombay Lagos Dhaka São Paolo Karachi Mexico City New York Jakarta Calcutta Delhi Metro Manila Shanghai Los Angeles Buenos Aires Cairo Istanbul Beijing Rio de Janeiro Osaka Tianjin Hyderabad Bangkok Lahore Seoul Paris Lima Kinshasa Moscow Madras Chongqing Teheran Bogotá

Japan India Nigeria Bangladesh Brazil Pakistan Mexico United States of America Indonesia India India Philippines China United States of America Argentina Egypt Turkey China Brazil Japan China India Thailand Pakistan Republic of Korea France Peru Dem. Rep. of the Congo Russian Federation India China Islamic Republic of Iran Colombia

19.771 6.856 3.300 2.172 10.047 3.983 11.236 15.880 4.814 7.888 4.426 5.000 11.443 8.926 9.144 6.079 3.601 8.545 7.854 9.844 6.160 2.086 3.842 2.399 6.808 8.885 3.651 1.735 7.623 3.609 2.439 4.274 3.036

26.444 18.066 13.427 12.317 17.755 11.794 18.131 16.640 11.018 12.918 11.695 10.870 12.887 13.140 12.560 10.552 9.451 10.839 10.582 11.013 9.156 6.842 7.281 6.040 9.888 9.624 7.443 5.064 9.321 6.648 5.312 7.225 6.288

26.444 26.138 23.173 21.119 20.397 19.211 19.180 17.432 17.256 17.252 16.808 14.825 14.575 14.080 14.076 13.751 12.492 12.299 11.905 11.013 10.713 10.457 10.143 9.961 9.923 9.677 9.388 9.366 9.353 9.145 8.949 8.709 8.006

0.00 44.68 72.59 71.46 14.88 62.89 5.79 4.76 56.62 33.55 43.72 36.38 13.10 7.15 12.07 30.32 32.18 13.47 12.50 0.00 17.01 52.84 39.31 64.92 0.35 0.55 26.13 84.95 0.34 37.56 68.47 20.54 27.32

1 15 33 43 5 16 4 2 22 12 23 21 3 8 7 20 32 10 13 6 19 45 28 41 16 9 30 n/a 14 31 40 25 35

1 3 6 11 4 12 2 5 14 8 13 16 9 7 10 19 22 17 18 15 24 31 27 35 20 21 25 40 23 32 38 28 34

Total (coastal agglomerations) 150.6 254.1 324.1 27.53 Total (all agglomerations) 217.4 368.2 467.2 26.88 n/a: not available.

Table 2 — The world’s largest cities, with projected populations in 2015 exceeding eight million. Arrows indicate coastal agglomerations (population data from UNPD, 2001). Urban populations tend to have higher consumption levels than their rural counterparts, as well as different consumption patterns. The increasing demand for food requires increasing productivity in fisheries and agriculture. However, this is often impeded by the loss of agri-cultural land to urban expansion and the reduction of fisheries potential due to habitat loss and pollution of rivers and coastal waters from urban and industrial waste. In addition, the large populations in many coastal areas around the world are, to a greater or lesser extent, vulnerable to hazardous events associated with natural coastal dy-namics such as storm surges, floods and tsunamis. Human-induced climate change and sea-level rise will further increase this vulnerability, as discussed in Section 3.

2.3. Economic values and competing demands In addition to population growth and urbanisation, coastal areas are facing unprecedented pressures on the economic development of their resources (Turner et al., 1996; Post and Lundin, 1996). The diversity of functions performed by natural coastal systems supports a va-riety of economic activities. As stated in Section 2.1, important economic activities in coastal zones include tourism and recreation, exploitation of living and non-living resources, industry and commerce, infrastructure development and nature conservation. Industry and commerce and infrastructure development are closely related to demographic developments as discuss-ed in Section 2.2. This section focuses on tourism and recreation, fisheries and nature conser-vation. 2.3.1. Tourism and recreation Tourism represents an important and growing economic activity in many parts of the world. In 1995, global international tourist receipts amounted to US$ 400 billion and most of this is coastal (OECD, 1997). Including domestic travel, tourism is the world’s largest single industry

6

and the potential for growth is still substantial in many places. Estimates indicate that it ac-counts for at least 5% of the combined Gross National Products (GNPs) of all countries, al-though wide variations exist. For example, in the early 1990s tourism was estimated to con-tribute about 43% of the Caribbean region’s combined GNP (Miller and Auyong, 1991). Since the late 1970s, a range of textbooks and assessment reports have discussed the close interrelationships between tourism and the environment (e.g., Edington and Edington, 1986; Briassoulis and Van der Straaten, 1992; Nelson et al., 1993). A common conclusion is that the viability and sustainability of the tourism sector is often undermined by (i) a lack of consideration of the external effects of sectoral activities on environmental and amenity val-ues that underpin tourism and (ii) the adverse effects of tourism and tourism development it-self. Thus, whilst coastal tourism can be threatened by other developments in the coastal zone, tourist activities themselves may also give rise to conflicts. Activities that could jeopardise tourism in coastal areas include aquaculture, agriculture, industry and oil and gas exploitation. These activities often compete for the same space and resources as those desired by tourists. Moreover, they may cause damage to coastal and ma-rine habitats and thereby degrade the basic resource upon which tourism depends to thrive and grow (e.g., Dulvy et al., 1995). In addition, eutrophication and microbial pollution caused by the disposal of untreated waste into coastal waters can affect the quality of seafood and bathing water and thus pose risks to human health. Gastroenteritis is the most common of the diseases that can be contracted (Andreadakis, 1997; Pruss, 1998), but cholera and typhoid can also be developed after the consumption of contaminated seafood (Desenclos, 1996). Environmental degradation caused by tourist development is perhaps most clearly ob-served in coral settings. A case study by Hawkins and Roberts (1994) examined the impacts of expanding coastal tourism on coral reefs along the Red Sea coast of Egypt. Activities are in progress to support an almost twelvefold increase in the number of visitors to this area over the period 1990–2005, 55% of which is likely to occur in the two popular resorts Hurghada and Sharm-el-Sheikh. Present development in Hurghada has already damaged inshore reefs to the extent that what remains is of little interest to divers and snorkellers, who are now directed to offshore reefs. The massive expansion plans are likely to increase current problems of in-filling, sedimentation, eutrophication, overfishing and trampling in both Hurghada and Sharm-el-Sheikh unless current regulations are enforced and restrictions on tourism growth are im-posed (Hawkins and Roberts, 1994). One example of tourism-related pollution is connected with the use of tributyltin as an anti-fouling agent in paints that, in spite of increasingly strict legislation to control their us-age, are still applied to protect vessel hulls, including those of recreational craft. Tributyltin is amongst the most toxic compounds introduced into the marine environment. It causes re-productive disorders in many gastropod species such as whelks, of which the females develop male characteristics—a mechanism referred to as imposex (Demora and Pelletier, 1997). Al-ternative anti-fouling paints are currently under development and a total ban on the use of tributyltin is expected before 2010 (Ten Hallers-Tjabbes, 1997). However, the problem of im-posex will not be solved overnight, since large concentrations of tributyltin have accumulated in marine sediments, especially in port areas and near shipping routes. Meanwhile, key ques-tions about toxicological mechanisms, particularly in mammals, remain unanswered (Demora and Pelletier, 1997). In summary, tourism can be an important source of income for many coastal countries but great care must be taken in tourism planning and management to avoid “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. In most coastal nations there are increasing demands for coastal sites for tourism development; policymakers are facing a major challenge in meeting demands whilst protecting the quality of the environment (Knight et al., 1997; White et al., 1997). A bitter lesson learnt by several Mediterranean and Asian coastal nations is that once the qual-ity of the environment declines, tourism revenues also drop. Once the reputation of an area has been damaged, it is extremely difficult to convince people to return. 2.3.2. Fisheries About 950 million people worldwide depend on fish as their primary source of protein, whilst the fishing industry directly or indirectly employs some 200 million people (WRI, 1996). Amongst the 40 countries that rank highest in per-capita consumption of marine sources of protein, all but one are developing countries. In 1995, total global fish production reached a

7

level of 112.9 million metric tons, 75% of which were marine landings, 6.3% marine aquacul-ture, 6.4% inland catch and 12.2% inland aquaculture. Of total global fish production, 81.9 million tonnes were used for human consumption; the remainder was reduced to fishmeal and oil (Grainger, 1997). Three decades ago, Gulland (1971) estimated that the maximum sustainable yield for traditionally exploited marine species would be about 100 million tonnes per year. Despite fisheries also turning to non-traditional species, marine capture has been fairly stable be-tween 78 and 86 million tonnes since 1986 (although an upward trend can be seen as of 1994), whilst marine aquaculture has increased from 3 to more than 7 million tonnes over the same period (Grainger, 1997). Caught but not included in the statistics are species of low commer-cial value and juvenile species. This unwanted bycatch has been estimated at between 18 and 39 million tonnes per year (Alverson et al., 1994). An important sign that marine fish are currently being overexploited is the increasing catch of mature and senescent fish and the decreasing catch of undeveloped and developing fish. This suggests that fewer fish are being born than are caught (Grainger and Garcia, 1996). This trend reflects the intensification of fisheries since 1950 and the increase in the propor-tion of marine fish subject to declines in productivity. It also underlines the fact that the growing total tonnage of fish production over this period gives a misleading picture of the state of world fisheries and a false sense of security (Grainger and Garcia, 1996). However, projections by individual nations, especially China, suggest that marine fish landings will con-tinue to increase significantly. Continued overexploitation and declining productivity could result in demands for marine fish exceeding annual production, with the consequent effect of increased prices and reduced availability of marine protein to many people in developing countries. In addition to overexploitation, part of the explanation for the stress on marine fish stocks lies in the loss of coastal fisheries habitats as a result of marine pollution and their conversion to aquaculture or other productive land. These habitats form the breeding, nurs-ery and feeding grounds for many fish and crustaceans that are currently exploited. In coun-tries such as Thailand and the Philippines, it is estimated that more than 70% of the mangrove area has been cleared and replaced by shrimp ponds (WRI, 1996). The socio-economic impacts of coastal aquaculture developments that require major alteration of coastal ecosystems can be far-reaching. Apart from the direct loss of mangrove and other valuable coastal systems, coastal aqua-culture can have a number of other adverse consequences on coastal systems. Reported im-pacts include land subsidence, acidification of soils and estuarine waters, salinisation of groundwater and agricultural lands and the subsequent loss of economic and environmental goods and services upon which coastal communities rely (WRI, 1996). Coastal aquaculture has led to drops in agricultural productivity and farm incomes, reduced water supplies, loss of in-come from fishing and forestry and increasing hazard of coastal flooding. One of the more re-cent socio-economic problems resulting from large-scale aquaculture development is the growing frequency of disease outbreaks, including algae blooms known as red tides, which can cause mass fish kills, resulting in major losses of income and threats to public health (WRI, 1996). 2.3.3. Nature conservation As discussed in Section 2.1, coastal zones provide a range of environmental goods and services that are essential to human social and economic well-being. Although each ecosystem func-tion provides different goods and services, its performance is often strongly connected to that of other functions. Development in coastal zones is traditionally triggered by the many eco-nomic opportunities provided by the user and production functions. However, often there has been little awareness that regulation functions provide the essential conditions for the full performance of these user and production functions. It is often not recognised that there are limits to the extent to which natural coastal systems allow for the exploitation of resources produced in coastal zones or that radical changes to these systems may adversely affect the availability or regeneration of these resources. One of the main reasons for the ongoing loss of natural habitat due to human activities is the fact that the importance of nature and a healthy environment to human well-being is not fully reflected in economic planning and decision-making. It is difficult to attach a monetary

8

value to the performance of regulation functions, unlike to that of many user and production functions. As a result, potential consequences of the loss of regulation functions are often not taken into account when assessing the costs and benefits of coastal development, although such losses could reduce future opportunities for resource development. According to De Groot (1992b), Turner and Adger (1996), Costanza et al. (1997) and others, the total eco-nomic value of ecosystems should be better represented in land-use planning and decision-making in order to achieve the conservation and sustainable utilisation of nature and its re-sources. Turner and Adger (1996) distinguish between a number of different types of values of ecosystems, which together make up their total economic value (Figure 1)1. An important re-search challenge in environmental and ecological economics has been to express the different types of values shown in Figure 1 in monetary terms so as to compare them with the direct costs and benefits of investment, for example in cost-benefit analysis. Various methods have been developed to assess the monetary value of ecosystems. In principle it is possible to ex-press each type of value in monetary terms, although more robust methods exist for the valuation of most direct-use values and—to some extent—indirect-use values. In practice, however, some important methodological caveats and potential biases can affect the results of valuation studies. It goes beyond the scope of this section to elaborate on these caveats and biases. The theory of monetary valuation of ecosystems is discussed in detail in Pearce and Turner (1990), Hanley and Spash (1993), Dixon et al. (1994) and Carson et al. (1996).

Total Economic Value

Use Values Non-Use Values

Direct Use Values Indirect Use Values Option Value Existence Values

Outputs Benefits Benefits Benefits

�� fish; �� fuelwood; �� recreation; �� transport/navigation.

�� flood control; �� storm protection; �� nutrient cycling; �� waste assimilation; �� sedimentation; �� habitat loss reduction; �� groundwater protection.

�� insurance value of preserving options for future use.

�� value derived merely from knowing a species or system is conserved;

�� value of passing on natural assets intact to future generations;

�� moral resource value motivations.

Figure 1 — Different types of ecosystem values, including examples for coastal zones (based on Turner and Adger, 1996). In general, methods to express ecosystem functions in monetary terms are based on hu-man preferences, as these should reflect the value that people attach to these functions. A basic distinction can be made between expressed-preference methods and revealed-prefer-ence methods. A later paper in this thesis reports on the application of the contingent valua-tion method, which is based on expressed preferences, and the travel-cost method (TCM), which is a revealed-preference method, to assess the value of nature-based recreation in a coastal wetland in England (Klein and Bateman, 1998). An increasing number of studies provide monetary estimates of the value of natural coastal systems, showing that this value is often considerable and usually far exceeds the (short-term) returns from non-sustainable coastal resource use. Published estimates vary from US$ 1.5 million to 13 million per square kilometre, with an average of between US$ 2–5 mil-lion/km2 for OECD countries and US$ 1.25 million/km2 for developing countries (Fankhauser, 1995). Such numbers increase the awareness of the importance of conserving coastal ecosys-

1 Gren et al. (1994) argue that, strictly speaking, the aggregate of all values is less than the total economic

value, as ecosystems are considered to have primary value that is conditional on the existence and mainte-nance of the healthy system rather than on any one individual human-use component. In other words, the sum of the total system value is greater than the sum of the component parts.

9

tems, especially in the light of anticipated global changes. Coastal ecosystems that can per-form their regulation functions, such as protection against erosion and waste assimilation, to their full potential are more robust and resilient to sea-level rise and pollution. In addition, De Groot (1992b) argues that the costs involved in conserving nature and managing protected areas could be seen as productive capital, providing employment and safeguarding opportuni-ties for other uses and benefits.

3. Climate change and coastal zones Human-induced global climate change and associated sea-level rise can have major adverse consequences for coastal ecosystems and societies. Human-induced climate change is caused by the emission of so-called “greenhouse” gases, which trap long-wave radiation in the upper atmosphere and thus raise atmospheric temperatures. Carbon dioxide is the most important of these gases and its atmospheric concentration has exponentially increased since the begin-ning of the industrial revolution as a result of fossil fuel combustion and land-use change. In 1800, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million (ppm); today it is about 350 ppm and rising. Similar increases have been observed for other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide (Houghton et al., 2001). Projections of future climate change are based on global scenarios of future emissions of greenhouse gases. These emission scenarios are subject to great uncertainty, as they reflect patterns of economic development, population growth, consumption and so on that are not easy to foresee over a 100-year period. A large number of emission scenarios are used to ac-count for this high degree of uncertainty. The most recent emission scenarios, which formed the basis of the climate projections of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), were pub-lished in the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES; Nakićenović et al., 2000) and are known as the SRES scenarios. By 2100, carbon cycle models project atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 540 to 970 ppm for the illustrative SRES scenarios, with a range of uncertainty of 490 to 1260 ppm (Houghton et al., 2001). Based on these projections and those of other greenhouse gases, the IPCC TAR projects an increase in globally averaged surface temperature by 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. These results are for the full range of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models. The IPCC TAR further states that it is very likely that nearly all land areas will warm more rapidly than the global average, particularly those at northern high latitudes in the cold season (Houghton et al., 2001).

3.1. Mechanisms and projections of sea-level rise Based on these projections of future climate, global mean sea level is projected to rise by 9 to 88 cm between 1990 and 2100, with a central value of 48 cm, for the full range of SRES scenarios. The projected sea-level rise is due primarily to the thermal expansion of ocean wa-ter (11 to 43 cm), followed by contributions from mountain glaciers (1 to 23 cm) and ice caps (–2 to 9 cm for Greenland and –17 to 2 cm for Antarctica) (Church et al., 2001). The projected central value of 48 cm gives an average rate of sea-level rise of 2.2 to 4.4 times the observed rate over the 20th century. Even with drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, sea level will continue to rise for centuries beyond 2100 because of the long response time of the global ocean system. An ultimate sea-level rise of 2 to 4 metres is possible for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that are twice and four times pre-industrial levels, respectively (Church et al., 2001). A major uncertainty is how the global mean sea-level rise will manifest itself on a re-gional scale. All models analysed by the IPCC show a strongly non-uniform spatial distribution of sea-level rise. Some regions show a sea-level rise substantially higher than the global aver-age (in many cases more than twice the average) and others a sea-level fall (Church et al., 2001). However, the patterns produced by the different models are not similar in detail. This lack of similarity means that confidence in projections of regional sea-level changes is low, although it is clear that they are important with respect to impacts of sea-level rise on coastal zones.

10

Many coastal areas experience vertical land movements, which change the level of the sea in relation to that of the land, irrespective of absolute sea-level changes. These move-ments are often associated with geological processes, but can also result from the extraction of water and hydrocarbons and from the oxidation of peat. Excessive groundwater withdrawal is a particular problem in many coastal cities, exacerbated by the cities’ rapid growth. As the water table beneath a city drops, formerly saturated sediments can consolidate irreversibly, causing the ground surface to subside rapidly. This subsidence leads to an additional rise in sea level relative to the land. Subsidence rates can be rapid, locally reaching one metre per decade (Nicholls, 1995a). For instance, land subsidence around Tianjin was around 5 cm/yr in the late 1980s and locally up to 11 cm/yr. In Japan, on the other hand, subsidence has been largely controlled by means of better groundwater management, although large areas in the Osaka-Tokyo conurbation, home to 2 million people, are now beneath high-water levels and would be submerged but for the extensive flood defence systems (Mimura et al., 1994). In addition to sea-level rise resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and land subsidence, human activities can also influence sea level directly by changing the amount of water stored in the ground, in lakes and in reservoirs and by modifying surface characteristics affecting runoff and evapotranspiration rates. These changes are likely to have led to a net change in sea level over the past century, although the direction of this change is disputed. Based on studies by Sahagian et al. (1994), Gornitz et al. (1997), Sahagian (2000), Gornitz (2000) and Vörösmarty and Sahagian (2000), Church et al. (2001) estimated that the average rate with which these changes contributed to global sea-level rise between 1910 and 1990 was –1.1 to 0.4 mm/yr. Sea-level rise is not the only climate-related effect relevant to coastal zones. However, confidence in model projections of other manifestations of climate change is generally still low. An important issue is the extent to which the frequency, intensity and spatial patterns of extreme events will change. A rise in mean sea level will lead to a decrease in the return pe-riod of storm surges, but it is unclear if the variability of storm surges itself will change. Changes that are considered likely over some areas are increases in peak wind intensities and mean and peak precipitation intensities of tropical cyclones. However, changes in tropical cy-clone location and frequency are still uncertain (Houghton et al., 2001). Changes in wind patterns and precipitation at higher latitudes also remain uncertain on local and regional scales. To date, no reliable projections exist of coastal storm characteris-tics and tidal range on scales useful for coastal impact analysis. The effect of storm surges can be compounded by increased precipitation on land and associated increased river runoff. Projections of runoff from selected rivers are becoming available, allowing their considera-tion in future analyses. The IPCC TAR states that recent trends for El Niño are projected to continue in many models (Houghton et al., 2001). These trends include a stronger warming of the eastern tropical Pacific relative to the western tropical Pacific, with a corresponding eastward shift of precipitation. Changes in El Niño patterns are likely to be relevant in a number of coastal lo-cations but they are still too uncertain to be considered in coastal impact studies. In summary, whilst it is recognised that impacts of climate change on coastal zones are prompted by more than sea-level rise alone, consideration of other factors is constrained by the uncertainties surrounding them, particularly on local and regional scales, with the emerging exception of river runoff. For this reason, the remainder of this chapter and indeed this thesis will concentrate on sea-level rise as the predominant focus in the analysis of vul-nerability, resilience and adaptation in coastal zones.

3.2. Potential impacts of sea-level rise on coastal zones For coastal areas, it is not the global, absolute sea level that matters but the locally ob-served, relative sea level, which takes into account regional sea-level variations and vertical movements of the land. Some parts of the world, such as most of Scandinavia, experience land uplift at such a high rate that projected absolute sea-level rise will be completely offset and relative sea level will continue to fall, albeit at a lower rate. Other areas, such as often densely populated deltas, are characterised by a strong downward movement of the land, which will add to absolute sea-level rise (Emery and Aubrey, 1991; Gröger and Plag, 1993).

11

Irrespective of the primary cause of sea-level rise (climate change, natural or human-in-duced subsidence, dynamic ocean effects), exposed natural coastal systems can be affected in a variety of ways. From a societal perspective, the six most important biogeophysical ef-fects are (Klein and Nicholls, 1998): �� Increasing flood frequency probabilities; �� Erosion; �� Inundation; �� Rising water tables; �� Saltwater intrusion; �� Biological effects.

These biogeophysical effects will have consequent effects on ecosystems and eventually affect socio-economic systems in the coastal zone. However, owing to the great diversity and variation of natural coastal systems and to the local and regional differences in relative sea-level rise, the occurrence of and response to these effects will not be uniform around the globe. Coastal environments particularly at risk include tidal deltas and low-lying coastal plains, sandy beaches and barrier islands, coastal wetlands, estuaries and lagoons and coral reefs and atolls (Bijlsma et al., 1996). Increased coastal flooding is expected to be most se-vere in South and Southeast Asia, Africa, the southern Mediterranean coasts, the Caribbean and most islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Watson et al., 1998; Nicholls et al., 1999). The effects of climate change and associated sea-level rise threaten economic sectors to a varying extent. The potential socio-economic impacts of sea-level rise can be categorised as follows (Klein and Nicholls, 1998): �� Direct loss of economic, ecological, cultural and subsistence values through loss of land,

infrastructure and coastal habitats; �� Increased flood risk to people, land and infrastructure and economic, ecological, cultural

and subsistence values; �� Other impacts related to changes in water management, salinity and biological activity.

Table 3 lists the most important socio-economic sectors in coastal zones and indicates from which of the aforementioned biogeophysical effects of climate change they are ex-pected to suffer direct impacts. Indirect impacts, for example impacts on human health re-sulting from deteriorating water quality, are also likely to be important to many sectors, but these are not shown in Table 3. Sector Biogeophysical effect Flood

frequency Erosion Inundation Water

table rise Saltwater intrusion

Biological effects

Water resources � � � � Agriculture � � � � Human health � � � Fisheries � � � � � Tourism � � � � Human settlements � � � � Table 3 — Qualitative overview of direct socio-economic impacts of climate change on a number of sectors in coastal zones (Klein and Nicholls, 1998). Changes in extreme events, whilst still uncertain, can have important consequences for coastal zones. For example, cyclones in the Bay of Bengal and hurricanes in the Caribbean have already caused serious economic disruption, damage to infrastructure and loss of human life, independent of global climate change. As stated, however, the mechanisms that deter-mine the occurrence of such events, as well as their patterns, are poorly understood. In the 1990s, a large and concerted effort was made to assess the implications of sea-level rise on coastal countries. Studies have been carried out on local, national and regional scales (e.g., Jeftić et al., 1992, 1996; Tooley and Jelgersma, 1992; Ehler, 1993; McLean and

12

Mimura, 1993; Maul, 1993; O’Callahan, 1994; Nicholls and Leatherman, 1995; Lenhart et al., 1996; Leatherman, 1997; Watson et al., 1998; Nicholls and Mimura, 1998; De la Vega-Leinert et al., 2000a, 2000b; Brochier and Ramieri, 2001; Mimura and Yokoki, 2001). In the IPCC Sec-ond Assessment Report, Bijlsma et al. (1996) emphasised that most coastal areas are vulner-able to the adverse consequences of sea-level rise to some degree and that some form of ad-aptation will be necessary. However, the studies show considerable variation in possible im-pacts. This is illustrated by Table 4, which provides an overview of quantitative results of na-tional coastal vulnerability studies. Without Measures With Measures People affected People

at risk Capital value

at loss Land at loss Wetland

at loss People at risk

Protection costs (100 yr)

Protection costs/year

# People (1,000)

% Total # People US$ (million)

% GNP km2 % Total km2 # People US$ (million) % GNP

Antigua Argentina Bangladesh Belize Benin China Egypt Guyana Japan Kiribati Malaysia Marshall Isl. Mauritius Netherlands Nigeria Poland Senegal St. Kitts-Nevis Tonga Uruguay United States Venezuela

38 71,000 70 1,350 72,000 4,700 600 15,400 9 40 6 10,000 3,200 235 >110 30 13 56

50 60 35 25 7 9 80 15 100 100 1 67 4 1 >1 47 <1 <1

1,900 30,000 60,000 20,000 24,000 196,400

5,600 126 59,272 4,000 807,000 2 175 186,000 18,000 24,000 700 1,800 350

6 12 204 1115 72 8 324 69 52 24 14 26 1

5 3,400 25,000 1,900 230 35,000 5,800 2,400 2,300 4 7,000 9 10 2,165 18,600 1,700 6,100 1 7 96 28,400 5,700

1.0 0.1 17.5 8.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.1 0.62 12.5 2.1 80 0.5 5.9 2.0 0.5 3.1 1.4 2.9 0.1 0.3 0.6

3 1,100 5,800 85 500 6,000 642 16,000 36 6,000 1 23 17,000 5,600

7,700 120,000 2,000 1,200 9,900

76 1,800/3,300 >1,000 >430 13,133 200 >200,000 3 >380 12,286 1,400/1,800 1,500 1,000/2,200 53 1,000/3,800 >143,000 1,700/2,600

0.32 0.02/0.04 >0.06 >0.41 0.45 0.26 >0.15 0.10 >7.04 0.05 0.04/0.05 0.02 0.21/0.40 2.65 0.12/0.46 >0.03 0.03/0.04

178,857 332,300 1,107,025 145,827 58,790 140,800 >378,961/ 385,761

Table 4 — Quantitative results of national coastal vulnerability studies (Nicholls, 1995b). The global vulnerability assessments carried out by Hoozemans et al. (1993) and Baarse (1995) suggest that some 189 million people presently live below the once-per-1000-years storm-surge level (the “hazard zone”). They estimate that, under present conditions, an av-erage of 46 million people per year experience storm-surge flooding. This number would dou-ble if sea level rises 50 cm (92 million people/year) and almost triple if it rises one metre (118 million people/year). Between 86% and 92% of these people would experience flooding even more than once a year (Baarse, 1995). These projections do not take into account any further population growth, changes in storm frequencies and intensities or adaptive re-sponses. In a recent update, Nicholls (2002) estimates the current number of people living in the hazard zone at 197 million and the average annual number of people flooded at 10 million. When population growth is considered, the former figure would increase to 399–598 million in 2100 in the absence of sea-level rise and to 503–755 million in 2100 when a high sea-level rise scenario is assumed (96 cm in 2100). Assuming no upgrade in protection levels and the same high sea-level rise scenario, the average annual number of people flooded would be 326–510 million in 2100, of whom 309–484 million would be flooded more than once per year. Assum-ing that protection levels increase with growing national income reduces the number to 211–337 million in 2100, of whom 195–311 million would experience flooding more than once per year.

3.3. Methodologies for assessing impacts of sea-level rise Most studies that provided the source data for Table 4 applied the Common Methodology for Assessing Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise, which was developed by the former Coastal Zone Management Subgroup of the IPCC (IPCC CZMS, 1992). The Common Methodology was meant to assist countries in making first-order assessments of potential coastal impacts of and adap-

13

tations to sea-level rise (for a more elaborate discussion see Klein and Nicholls, 1999). It was used as the basis of assessments in at least 46 countries. The assessments aimed at identify-ing populations and resources at risk and the costs and feasibility of possible responses to ad-verse impacts. Quantitative results were produced in 22 country case studies (shown in Table 4) and eight subnational studies (Nicholls, 1995b). It is important that the quantitative results in Table 4 are interpreted as being indicative only. Studies using the Common Methodology were meant to serve as preparatory assess-ments, identifying priority regions and priority sectors and providing an initial screening of possible measures. Scientific uncertainties are compounded by uncertainties surrounding fu-ture socio-economic developments and by the fact that the damage cost estimates are sensi-tive to the use of discount rates. In addition, the impacts shown in Table 4 have been as-sessed assuming a one-metre rise in sea level by 2100, whereas the latest scientific informa-tion, as presented in Section 3.1, suggests a lower global mean sea-level rise. On the other hand, one can argue that the results may well represent underestimates, because impacts on non-market values have not been assessed and because the studies assume sea-level rise to be a gradual process. As shown by West and Dowlatabadi (1999) and West et al. (2001), su-perimposing current storm-surge variability on a gradual rise in sea level can lead to esti-mates of damage costs that are an order of magnitude different from those based only on gradual changes, where perfect foresight is assumed (cf. Yohe et al., 1996; Yohe and Neu-mann, 1997). As noted by Klein and Nicholls (1999), many studies that used the Common Methodology faced a lack of the accurate and complete data necessary for impact and adaptation assess-ment. This has limited its applicability, which has led to the development of alternative as-sessment methodologies (e.g., Kay and Hay, 1993; Gornitz et al., 1994). Nonetheless, no other methodology has been applied as widely and evaluated as thoroughly as the Common Methodology (e.g., Kay et al., 1996). Thus, it has contributed to understanding the conse-quences of sea-level rise and encouraged long-term thinking about coastal zones. It also be-came a model for assessing impacts and adaptation in non-coastal systems. In 1994, the IPCC published its Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Im-pacts and Adaptations (Carter et al., 1994), which provide generic guidance to countries that wish to assess their vulnerability to climate change. For a range of socio-economic and phy-siographic systems, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessments and Adaptation Strategies (Feenstra et al., 1998) then offers a detailed elaboration of the IPCC Technical Guidelines, including for coastal zones (Klein and Nicholls, 1998). The similarities and differences between the IPCC Common Meth-odology and the IPCC Technical Guidelines are discussed in Klein and Nicholls (1999). Klein et al. (1999) evaluate the guidance on adaptation assessment provided by the IPCC Technical Guidelines. Adaptation can play an important part in reducing the potential impacts of climate change in coastal zones. In both the IPCC Common Methodology and the IPCC Technical Guidelines, the guidance provided for adaptation assessment is limited. Rather than evaluat-ing a range of options using some formal decision-making framework (e.g., cost-benefit or multi-criteria analysis), studies tended to consider only a protection versus a do-nothing sce-nario. However, there are many different ways and options to respond to the impacts of sea-level rise (see Section 4.3). In fact, many of the early studies used a so-called “dumb farmer” scenario2: they as-sumed that present-day behaviour and activities would continue unchanged in the future, ir-respective of how they might be affected by climate change. By ignoring any adaptation, these studies did not distinguish between potential and residual impacts and thus their dam-age-cost values represent serious overestimates. On the other hand, the studies, which are not unique to agriculture, served to generate awareness of the potential magnitude of im-pacts and the need for anticipatory adaptation.

2 The dumb farmer is a metaphor for any impacted economic agent that does not anticipate climate change or

act upon its manifestation. Instead, it continues to act as if nothing has changed. By not responding to changing circumstances, the agent reduces its profitability or fails to take advantage of emerging opportunities. It thus incurs larger damages than would have been the case had some adaptation taken place. The clairvoyant farmer, on the other hand, has perfect knowledge and foresight and is able to minimise damages or maximise benefits. As always, reality will be somewhere in between.

14

Current methodological work focuses more strongly on the role of adaptation and adap-tive capacity in determining vulnerability to climate change. Methods for so-called second-generation vulnerability assessment are being developed, building on the insights developed in the past ten years. An introduction to second-generation vulnerability assessment is given in the synthesis chapter of this thesis.

4. Vulnerability, resilience and adaptation: exploring the concepts Vulnerability, resilience and adaptation are the three basic concepts around which the re-search that forms the basis of this thesis has been organised. This thesis deals with the vul-nerability, resilience and adaptation of coastal zones to climate change. However, the three terms are not used exclusively in this context. In fact, their usage in relation to climate change is relatively new compared to that in disciplines such as natural hazard assessment, ecology and economics. It is therefore useful for the analysis of coastal vulnerability, resil-ience and adaptation to climate change to understand how the concepts have been defined and used in other fields. This section presents an overview.

4.1. Vulnerability Vulnerability is an important concept in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the single most important document on climate change for both scientists and policymakers. The UNFCCC was one of the products of the United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. However, in referring to countries that are “particularly vulnerable to the ad-verse effects of climate change” (Article 4.4) it does not provide a definition of vulnerability or any other indication as to how particularly vulnerable countries may be identified. The IPCC, as the main international scientific body on climate change, took up the challenge to develop a methodology for assessing vulnerability to climate change. As mentioned in Section 3.3, the then Coastal Zone Management Subgroup of the IPCC developed a Common Methodology for Assessing Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise (IPCC CZMS, 1992), which formed the inspiration for the generic IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations (Carter et al., 1994). The idea behind a common methodology and technical guidelines was that if all countries were to conduct similar as-sessments, their relative vulnerabilities to climate change could be compared and it would become clear which of them are particularly vulnerable. In addition, knowledge of vulnerability would enable coastal scientists and policymakers to anticipate impacts that could result from climate change and sea-level rise. It could thus help to prioritise management efforts that need to be undertaken to minimise risks or reduce possible consequences. Vulnerability assessments were then seen as contributing to inte-grated coastal zone management programmes, which are based on an awareness of the types and magnitude of problems that different coastal areas may have to face, as well as of possi-ble, alternative solutions (WCC’93, 1994; Bijlsma et al., 1996; see Section 5). IPCC CZMS (1992) defines the vulnerability of coastal zones as “the degree of incapability to cope with the consequences of climate change and accelerated sea-level rise”. This defini-tion implies that vulnerability is a composite measure of anticipated impacts of climate change and the extent to which systems can adapt to these impacts (see Section 4.3). It is consistent with earlier conceptual work on vulnerability, which usually presents vulnerability as a reverse function of a system’s ability to cope with stress and shock (e.g., Timmerman, 1981; Smith, 1992). The chapter “Coastal Zones and Small Islands” of the IPCC Second Assessment Report (Bijlsma et al., 1996) also emphasises that vulnerability is a multi-dimensional concept, en-compassing biogeophysical, socio-economic and political factors. It can then be argued that the results presented in Table 4 only show part of the picture of vulnerability, as the “inca-pability to cope” is measured only as the financial cost of coastal protection relative to a country’s economy. Whether coastal protection is the most appropriate adaptation strategy in all cases is not considered, nor are any other indicators of “incapability to cope” analysed. Increasing recognition of this methodological flaw has led to a number of alternative ap-

15

proaches (e.g., Harvey et al., 1999), culminating in the emergence of the concept of “adap-tive capacity” (see Sections 4.3 and 6.2). Before climate change emerged as an academic focus in coastal research, vulnerability as such was not an important concept. Traditional research in coastal zones is conducted mainly by geologists, ecologists and engineers, roughly as follows: �� Geologists study coastal sedimentation patterns and the consequent dynamic processes

of erosion and accretion over different spatial and temporal scales; �� Ecologists study the occurrence, diversity and functioning of coastal flora and fauna from

the species to the ecosystem level; �� Engineers take a risk-based approach, assessing the probability of occurrence of storm

surges and other extreme events that could jeopardise the integrity of the coast and the safety of coastal communities.

Thus, the coastal scientific community in general and the IPCC Coastal Zone Management Subgroup in particular were not hindered by knowledge of existing conceptualisations of vul-nerability when defining coastal vulnerability to climate change and developing a methodol-ogy for its assessment. The approach taken for coastal zones was seen as a model for other systems within the IPCC and vulnerability to climate change is now generally interpreted and assessed in this manner. This approach to vulnerability assessment has been intuitively attractive to the climate change community, which is strongly model-orientated. Based on scenarios and models of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, sectoral models (e.g., hydrological, ecological, agricultural and disease vector models) can be applied to project potential biophysical im-pacts, which can then be evaluated in terms of damage to a country’s or sector’s economy. The role of adaptation in such assessments is briefly discussed in Section 4.3. Many in the climate change community were unaware of the long history of vulnerability assessment in other disciplines, particularly in the fields of food security and natural hazard reduction. In these fields, vulnerability is also interpreted in terms of potential harm and ca-pacity to cope, but there is a crucial difference in that the geographical scale of climate change vulnerability studies is considerably coarser than that of food security and natural hazard studies. The latter type of studies tend to focus in more depth on particular groups and communities within a society. In so doing, they take a radically different approach to vul-nerability assessment. As stated, climate change vulnerability studies typically take model results as an input to assess potential consequences of climate change on a country, sector or physiographic sys-tem. The resolution of climate and sectoral models and the uncertainty surrounding their output inhibit meaningful assessments of impacts and adaptation needs at a local level. In contrast to this somewhat mechanistic top-down approach is the bottom-up approach of vul-nerability analysis in food security and natural hazard studies. This approach is typically place-based and cognisant of the rich variety of social, cultural, economic, institutional and other factors that define vulnerability to famine or natural hazards. It does not rely on global or regional models to inform the analysis; instead the major source of information is the vul-nerable community itself. It is clear that climate change, food security and natural hazards are related. In some ar-eas climate change could threaten food security, whilst in many areas the frequency and in-tensity of weather-related natural hazards are likely to increase. There is growing recognition of the fact that many climate change vulnerability studies, whilst useful in alerting policy-makers to the potential consequences of climate change, have limited usefulness in providing guidance on adaptation at local scales. These studies do not consider the complex nature of vulnerability reflected in the definition of Downing et al. (1996):

Vulnerability is a complex and multidimensional social space defined by the determinate political, eco-nomic and institutional capabilities of people in specific places at specific times.

In other words, vulnerability is a prior condition, bound up with the social and economic situation of households and communities, and although external physical factors (such as cli-mate change) play a role in raising vulnerability, they are not preconditions or sole causes (Adger and Kelly, 1999).

16

In the climate change community, a process has started to complement the top-down studies, which consider climate change as the sole driver of vulnerability, with more place-based studies, which aim to analyse the non-climatic context influencing vulnerability, so as to integrate the need for adaptation with other, more imminent priorities of vulnerable communities. Some observations on the role of the international climate community in this process are presented in the final chapter of this thesis.

4.2. Resilience The extent to which a coastal system is affected by sea-level rise will strongly depend on its resilience to changes. Non-climate stresses may already have adversely affected the coastal system’s resilience and thereby its ability to cope with additional pressures (see Section 2). In addition, at those places where the coast has been developed and protected by hard infra-structure, landward migration of coastal ecosystems such as wetlands is obstructed (Bijlsma et al., 1996). Coastal resilience is the topic of a later paper in this thesis (Klein et al., 1998). This pa-per distinguishes between morphological, ecological and socio-economic resilience and was part of a special issue of the Geographical Journal devoted entirely to resilience in coastal zones (Nicholls and Branson, 1998). The aim of this section is to provide a brief overview of the literature on resilience in other disciplines, focusing in particular on ecosystem resilience and social resilience. This section is based on Klein et al. (2002). The Oxford English Dictionary defines resilience as (i) the act of rebounding or springing back and (ii) elasticity. The origin of the word is in Latin, where resilio means to jump back. In a purely mechanical sense, the resilience of a material is the quality of being able to store strain energy and deflect elastically under a load without breaking or being deformed (Gor-don, 1978). However, since the 1970s the concept has also been used in a more metaphorical sense to describe systems that undergo stress and have the ability to recover. Holling (1973) coins the term resilience for ecosystems as a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb changes and still persist. As such, it determines the persistence of relationships within an ecosystem. This is contrasted with stability, which is defined by Holl-ing (1973) as the ability of a system to return to a state of equilibrium after a temporary dis-turbance. Thus, a very stable system would not fluctuate greatly but return to normal quick-ly, whilst a highly resilient system may be quite unstable, in that it may undergo significant fluctuation (Handmer and Dovers, 1996). Since the seminal work by Holling (1973), resilience has become an issue of intense con-ceptual debate amongst ecologists. The literature provides many perspectives and interpreta-tions of ecological resilience and, in spite of thirty years of debate, there appears to be no consensus on how the concept can be made operational or even how it should be defined. Al-ternative definitions have been provided, focusing on different system properties. For exam-ple, Pimm (1984) defines resilience as the speed with which a system returns to its original state following a perturbation. Other ecologists question the core assumption that underpins the concept of resilience, namely that ecosystems exist in an equilibrium state to which they can return after experi-encing a given level of disturbance. They argue that ecosystems are dynamic and evolve con-tinuously in response to external influences taking place on a range of different time scales. Attempts by ecosystem managers at maintaining some equilibrium state will therefore be bound to fail. In spite of the relative lack of specificity with which resilience has been defined in ecol-ogy (or perhaps as a result of it), the concept has also gained ground in social science, where it is applied to describe the behavioural response of communities, institutions and economies. Timmerman (1981) has been one of the first to discuss the resilience of society to climate change. In so doing, he links resilience to vulnerability. He defines resilience as the measure of a system’s or part of a system’s capacity to absorb and recover from the occurrence of a hazardous event. Dovers and Handmer (1992) distinguish between the reactive and proactive resilience of society. A society relying on reactive resilience approaches the future by strengthening the status quo and making the present system resistant to change, whereas one that develops proactive resilience accepts the inevitability of change and tries to create a system that is capable of adapting to new conditions and imperatives. This is an important broadening of

17

the traditional interpretation of resilience, which is based on the premise of resilience being tested by an initial perturbation. The distinction made by Dovers and Handmer (1992) is based on the major difference between ecosystems and societies: the human capacity for an-ticipation and learning. Dovers and Handmer (1992) thus link resilience to planning and adaptation to hazards. In a later paper, they develop a typology of institutional resilience, which provides a framework for considering the rigidity and inadequacy of present institutional responses to global envi-ronmental change (Handmer and Dovers, 1996). They argue that current institutions and pol-icy processes appear to be locked in a type of resilience that is characterised by change at the margins. Responses to environmental change are shaped by what is perceived to be politi-cally and economically palatable in the near term rather than by the nature and scale of the threat itself. This type of resilience, as well as a type that is characterised by resistance to change, provides some level of stability in society, although there is a potentially large risk that this apparent stability is not sustainable and could lead to collapse if society cannot make the so-cial, economic and political changes necessary for survival. The third type of resilience de-scribed by Handmer and Dovers (1996), one that is characterised by openness and adaptation, is more likely to deal directly with the underlying causes of environmental problems and re-duces vulnerability by providing a high degree of flexibility. Its key feature is a readiness to adopt new basic operating assumptions and institutional structures. However, there is also a potentially large risk involved in moving towards this type of resilience. Change deemed as necessary could turn out to be maladaptive, rendering a large cost to society. Adger (2000) investigates the links between social resilience and ecological resilience. He follows Timmerman (1981) in his definition of social resilience: the ability of human commu-nities to withstand external shocks or perturbations to their infrastructure, such as environ-mental variability or social, economic or political upheaval, and to recover from such pertur-bations. Social resilience is measured through proxies of institutional change and economic structure, property rights, access to resources and demographic change (Adger, 1997). It is argued by many ecologists that resilience is the key to sustainable ecosystem man-agement and that diversity enhances resilience, stability and ecosystem functioning (e.g., Schulze and Mooney, 1993; Peterson et al., 1998; Chapin et al., 2000). Ecological economists also argue that resilience is the key to sustainability in the wider sense (e.g., Common, 1995). However, Adger (2000) observes that whilst resilience is certainly related to stability, it is not clear whether this characteristic is always desirable (cf. Handmer and Dovers, 1996). This overview of conceptual development of resilience shows that what was once a straightforward concept used only in mechanics is now a complex multi-interpretable concept with contested definitions and even relevance. Nonetheless, the concept of resilience is now used in a great variety of interdisciplinary work concerned with the interactions between people and nature, including vulnerability and disaster reduction (ISDR, 2002). The most im-portant development over the past thirty years is the increasing recognition across the disci-plines that human and ecological systems are interlinked and that their resilience relates to the functioning and interaction of the systems rather than to the stability of their compo-nents or the ability to maintain or return to some equilibrium state. This recognition has led to the establishment of the Resilience Alliance, a network of scientists with roots mainly in ecology and ecological economics, which aims to stimulate academic research on resilience and inform the global policy process on sustainable develop-ment (Folke et al., 2002). The Resilience Alliance consistently refers to social-ecological sys-tems and defines their resilience by considering three distinct dimensions (Carpenter et al., 2001): �� The amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still remain within the same state or

domain of attraction; �� The degree to which the system is capable of self-organisation; �� The degree to which the system can build and increase the capacity for learning and ad-

aptation. This definition is an amalgamation of the aforementioned definitions of ecological, social and institutional resilience. However, resilience remains at the conceptual level, creating the

18

danger that there is a “motherhood and apple-pie” view on resilience that leaves limited scope for measurement, testing and formalisation. The challenge remains to transform the concept of resilience into an operational tool for policy and management purposes (Klein et al., 2002).

4.3. Adaptation Like vulnerability, adaptation is a term that was given prominence in the UNFCCC as one of the two response strategies to climate change, along with mitigation. Mitigation comprises all human activities aimed at reducing the emissions or enhancing the sinks of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Adaptation in the context of climate change refers to any adjustment that takes place in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected impacts of climate change, aimed at moderating harm or exploiting bene-ficial opportunities. Despite the fact that the UNFCCC refers to both mitigation and adaptation, national and international climate policies to date have mainly focused on mitigation. In part this reflects the uncertainty about whether climate change is caused by human activity, which existed un-til the publication of the IPCC Second Assessment Report in 1996. It also reflects the lack of theoretical and practical knowledge about adaptation to climate change, which in turn re-sulted from the limited attention given to adaptation by the scientific community. In his re-view of the IPCC Second Assessment Report, Kates (1997) suggests the reason for this limited attention lies in the existence of two distinct schools of thought about climate change, both of which have chosen not to engage in adaptation research. On the one extreme Kates identifies the “preventionist” school, which argues that the ongoing increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations could be catastrophic and that drastic action is required to reduce emissions. Preventionists fear that increased empha-sis on adaptation will weaken society’s willingness to reduce emissions and thus delay or di-minish mitigation efforts. On the other extreme one finds what Kates refers to as the “adap-tationist” school, which sees no need to focus on either adaptation or mitigation. Adaptation-ists argue that natural and human systems have a long history of adapting naturally to chang-ing circumstances and that active adaptation would constitute interference with these sys-tems, bringing with it high social costs. Following the publication of the IPCC Second Assessment Report, a distinct third school of thought has emerged, which has been labelled the “realist” school by Klein and MacIver (1999). The realist school positions itself in between the two extreme views of the preven-tionists and adaptationists. Realists regard climate change as a fact but acknowledge that im-pacts are still uncertain. Furthermore, realists appreciate that the planning and implementa-tion of effective adaptation options takes time. Therefore, they understand that a process must be set in motion to consider adaptation as a crucial and realistic response option along with mitigation (e.g., Parry et al., 1998; Pielke, 1998). There are various ways to classify or distinguish between adaptation options. First, de-pending on the timing, goal and motive of its implementation, adaptation can be either reac-tive or anticipatory. Reactive adaptation occurs after the initial impacts of climate change have become manifest, whilst anticipatory (or proactive) adaptation takes place before im-pacts are apparent. A second distinction can be based on the system in which the adaptation takes place: the natural system (in which adaptation is by definition reactive) or the human system (in which both reactive and anticipatory adaptation are observed). Within the human system, a third distinction can be based on whether the adaptation decision is motivated by private or public interests. Private decision-makers include both individual households and commercial companies, whilst public interests are served by governments at all levels. Figure 2 shows examples of adaptation activities for each of the five types of adaptation that have thus been defined. In addition to the ones made above, other adaptation distinctions are discussed in a pa-per by Smit et al. (2000), which is presented later in this thesis. A useful distinction that is often made is the one between planned and autonomous adaptation (Carter et al., 1994). Planned adaptation is the result of a deliberate policy decision that is based on an awareness that conditions have changed or are about to change and that action is required to return to, maintain or achieve a desired state. Autonomous adaptation involves the changes that natural and most human systems will undergo in response to changing conditions, irrespective of any

19

policy plan or decision. Instead, autonomous adaptation will be triggered by market or wel-fare changes induced by climate change. Autonomous adaptation in human systems would therefore be in the actor’s rational self-interest, whilst the focus of planned adaptation is on collective needs (Leary, 1999). Thus defined, autonomous and planned adaptation largely cor-respond with private and public adaptation, respectively (see Figure 2).

Anticipatory Reactive

Priv

ate

Publ

ic

· Purchase of insurance·Construction of houses on stilts·Redesign of oil-rigs

·Compensatory payments, subsidies·Enforcement of building codes·Beach nourishment

·Early-warning systems·New building codes, design standards· Incentives for relocation

·Changes in farm practices·Changes in insurance premiums·Purchase of air-conditioning

HumanSystems

NaturalSystems

·Changes in length of growing season·Changes in ecosystem composition·Wetland migration

Anticipatory Reactive

Priv

ate

Publ

ic

· Purchase of insurance·Construction of houses on stilts·Redesign of oil-rigs

·Compensatory payments, subsidies·Enforcement of building codes·Beach nourishment

·Early-warning systems·New building codes, design standards· Incentives for relocation

·Changes in farm practices·Changes in insurance premiums·Purchase of air-conditioning

HumanSystems

NaturalSystems

·Changes in length of growing season·Changes in ecosystem composition·Wetland migration

Figure 2 — Matrix showing the five prevalent types of adaptation to climate change, includ-ing examples (based on Klein, 1998). Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC suggests that anticipatory planned adaptation (as well as mitigation) deserves particular attention from the international climate change community:

“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into ac-count that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. (...).”

Anticipatory adaptation is aimed at reducing a system’s vulnerability by either minimis-ing risk or maximising adaptive capacity. Five generic objectives of anticipatory adaptation can be identified (Klein and Tol, 1997; Klein, 2001): �� Increasing robustness of infrastructural designs and long-term investments—for example

by extending the range of temperature or precipitation a system can withstand without failure and/or changing a system’s tolerance of loss or failure (e.g., by increasing eco-nomic reserves or insurance);

�� Increasing flexibility of vulnerable managed systems—for example by allowing mid-term adjustments (including change of activities or location) and/or reducing economic life-times (including increasing depreciation);

�� Enhancing adaptability of vulnerable natural systems—for example by reducing other (non-climatic) stresses and/or removing barriers to migration (such as establishing eco-corridors);

�� Reversing trends that increase vulnerability (“maladaptation”)—for example by intro-ducing zoning regulation in vulnerable areas such as floodplains and coastal zones;

�� Improving societal awareness and preparedness—for example by informing the public of the risks and possible consequences of climate change and/or setting up early-warning systems.

Each of these five objectives of adaptation is relevant for coastal zones. However, for coastal zones another classification of adaptation options is often used. This classification, in-troduced by IPCC CZMS (1990) and still the basis of many coastal adaptation analyses, distin-guishes between the following three basic strategies:

20

�� Protect—to reduce the risk of the event by decreasing the probability of its occurrence; �� Accommodate—to increase society’s ability to cope with the effects of the event; �� Retreat—to reduce the risk of the event by limiting its potential effects.

For each of these strategies Bijlsma et al. (1996) provides a list of different options, ranging from hard structural options and strict regulation of hazard zones to emergency plan-ning and managed realignment. Klein and Nicholls (1998) then analyse the process and timing of their implementation, whilst Klein et al. (2000, 2001) discuss the three strategies in detail and provide examples of technologies for implementing each of them. The three coastal adaptation strategies roughly coincide with the first three of the five adaptation objectives listed above. Protecting coastal zones against sea-level rise and other climatic changes would involve increasing the robustness of infrastructural designs and long-term investments such as seawalls and other coastal infrastructure. A strategy to accommo-date sea-level rise could include increasing the flexibility of managed systems such as agricul-ture, tourism and human settlements in coastal zones. A retreat strategy would serve to en-hance the adaptability (or resilience) of coastal wetlands, by allowing them space to migrate to higher land as sea level rises. Policies and practices that are unrelated to climate but which do increase a system’s vul-nerability to climate change are termed maladaptation (Burton, 1996, 1997). Examples of maladaptation in coastal zones include investments in hazardous zones, inappropriate coastal-defence schemes, sand or coral mining and coastal-habitat conversions. A common cause of maladaptation is a lack of information on the potential external effects of proposed developments on other sectors, or a lack of consideration thereof. More proactive and inte-grated planning and management of coastal zones is widely suggested as an effective mecha-nism for strengthening sustainable development (e.g., Cicin-Sain, 1993; Ehler et al., 1997; Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998; see Section 5). Empirical information on coastal adaptation to climate change is still scarce, so uncer-tainty remains considerable. Continued impact and adaptation assessment, combined with fundamental research on coastal system response and economic, institutional, legal and socio-cultural aspects of adaptation, are required to understand which adaptation options might be most appropriate and most effectively implemented. The synthesis chapter of this thesis will propose ways to improve adaptation assessment in coastal zones, based on the concept of adaptive capacity.

5. Coastal vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to climate change: the policy and management context Although the primary goal of the aforementioned vulnerability assessments has been to iden-tify a country’s coastal vulnerability to climate change and associated sea-level rise, many of the assessments have shown that climate change is often not the most crucial issue for a coastal region. This is particularly true in areas where pressures from population growth and economic development are already creating problems and hazards. Nonetheless, as stated be-fore, these current pressures may have adversely affected the coastal ecosystem’s resilience and thereby its ability to cope with additional pressures such as climate change and sea-level rise. For example, the conversion of coastal wetlands to agricultural land can be at the ex-pense of the coast’s ability to provide a buffering capacity and thus protect the land against the dynamics of the sea. As climate changes and sea level rises, this capacity will become even more important than it is today, preventing coastal areas from being eroded and inun-dated. This illustrates that when current coastal pressures are not adequately dealt with in the short term, coastal zones will become increasingly more vulnerable to the consequences of climate change and sea-level rise (WCC’93, 1994). In spite of many local and national efforts, traditional approaches to the management and use of coastal resources have often proved to be insufficient to achieve sustainable de-velopment (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). As a result, coastal resources are being degraded and lost in many parts of the world. Some policy process is needed that can address the re-source-use conflicts discussed in Section 2, as well as find the balance between short-term economic and longer-term environmental interests. In other words, a process is needed to

21

implement decisions on the mix of uses that best serves the needs of society now and in the future. Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) has been widely recognised and promoted as the most appropriate process to deal with these current and long-term coastal challenges. Ac-cording to WCC’93 (1994), Ehler et al. (1997) and Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998), ICZM provides coastal societies with an opportunity to move towards sustainable development. Integrated management of conflicting uses and activities is essential for this goal. Moreover, ICZM allows current and future interests in coastal areas and resources to be taken into account. By con-sidering short, medium and long-term interests, ICZM stimulates economic development of coastal areas and resources, whilst reducing the degradation of their natural systems. Third, ICZM provides a framework within which flexible responses can be developed to deal with the inherent uncertainty about the future, including rates and magnitude of climate change. In short, ICZM can provide coastal states with a process to enhance economic development and improve the quality of life (WCC’93, 1994). At the World Coast Conference, ICZM was defined as follows:

Integrated coastal zone management involves the comprehensive assessment, setting of objectives, plan-ning and management of coastal systems and resources, taking into account traditional, cultural and his-torical perspectives and conflicting interests and uses; it is a continuous and evolutionary process for achieving sustainable development.

The purpose of ICZM is to provide the conditions that will facilitate development, stimu-late progress and encourage (changes in) human and institutional behaviour in order to achieve shared goals. In general, these goals are specified targets related to the desired mix of goods, services and values to be produced, consumed or conserved. ICZM must anticipate and respond to the needs of coastal communities; public participation and stakeholder in-volvement in the planning and implementation of ICZM are therefore essential. To be successful, ICZM should include the following (Bijlsma et al., 1996): �� Integration of programmes and plans for economic development, environmental manage-

ment and land use; �� Integration of programmes for economic sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, energy,

transportation, water resources, waste disposal and tourism; �� Integration of responsibilities for various tasks of management amongst levels of govern-

ment (local, state/provincial, national and regional), as well as between the public and private sector;

�� Integration of available resources for management (personnel, funds, materials and equipment);

�� Integration amongst scientific disciplines, such as ecology, geomorphology, hydrology, economics, engineering, political science, behavioural science and law.

Although integration in management requires more extensive analysis, preparation and planning than is common in sectoral management, the overall costs of ICZM can ultimately be lower than the cumulative costs of separate sectoral approaches. In addition, taking a proac-tive, or precautionary, approach to ICZM (i.e., acting before irreversible damage is realised) can provide not only environmental but also economic benefits (Vellinga and Leatherman, 1989; Tol et al., 1995). This chapter has shown that adaptation to climate change cannot be separated from the planning and management efforts to address present-day problems in coastal areas. Carefully harmonising the different sectoral development options and needs is a first step in an evolu-tionary process towards sustainable development in coastal zones. Sustainable development has, by definition, an extended time horizon. Long-term thinking, as encouraged by the con-sideration of climate change, is therefore a key component of ICZM and can be economically feasible (Tol et al., 1995). However, it is important to note that there is no single recipe for successful ICZM. Every coastal zone faces different challenges, which require unique approaches to management. Whereas one can identify basic steps in ICZM (problem recognition, analysis and planning, im-plementation of measures, operation and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures), the most appropriate management approach will depend to a

22

large extent on cultural, political, economic and historical conditions, and will therefore vary between and within countries. An important difference between sectoral and integrated coastal zone management is the interaction and collaboration between different stakeholders so as to ensure the careful consideration of both public and private interests. The next two sections provide a brief over-view of public and private sector responsibilities in ICZM, with a particular focus on adapta-tion to climate change.

5.1. Public initiatives and responsibilities The public sector represents governments from the local to the national level, as well as in-ternational institutional organisations. The public sector is typically concerned with meeting collective needs and safeguarding collective interests (such as health, safety and biodiver-sity), as well as facilitating private sector activities within a regulatory, fiscal and planning framework designed to prevent or minimise social costs. In addition, the public sector can ini-tiate activities aimed at awareness raising, capacity building and technology transfer (Klein et al., 2001). Many ecosystem goods and services listed in Table 1 are so-called commons: they are available at no cost to anyone who wants to use them. The fact that they do not have a mar-ket price does not mean they do not have a value (see Section 2.3.3). However, this value is often only appreciated once the ecosystem good or service has been overexploited and lost. The increasing concentration of people and activities in coastal zones has increased the po-tential for multiple-use conflicts, as the activities of one stakeholder impinge on the interests or activities of another stakeholder. As stated in Section 2.1, coastal zone management is traditionally considered as a proc-ess to handle conflicts between the various (potential) users of increasingly scarce coastal re-sources and to address current problems that result from stakeholders pursuing their own sec-toral interests. As such, coastal zone management has focused strongly on conflicts stemming from the multiple uses of resources provided by user and production functions. The United States Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was one of the first public sector initiatives worldwide to co-ordinate sectoral activities in coastal zones. An important component of the act is an agreement between federal and state governments, whereby the federal govern-ment offers financial and technical assistance to states. States can choose to develop and im-plement coastal zone management programmes, but they must adhere to minimum federal standards on protecting coastal resources, ensuring public access to the coast, managing de-velopment along the coast and managing coastal hazards (Kay and Alder, 1999). As pressures on coasts continued to increase, the need for ICZM was recognised more widely, not only at a national level but internationally as well. In the 1980s and 1990s, a range of international organisations promoted the development of ICZM, including UNEP, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the In-ternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, the management of coastal zones featured prominently in the conference’s main product, Agenda 21. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 stresses both the importance of oceans and coasts for life on earth and the positive opportunity for sustainable development represented by oceans and coastal zones. It states that new ap-proaches to marine and coastal management are needed; approaches that are integrated in content and precautionary and anticipatory in ambit. Implementation of the recommenda-tions in Chapter 17 involves a multitude of actors, ranging from local grassroots organisations to global institutions and everything in between (Cicin-Sain et al., 1995). Another major product of UNCED was the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change (see Section 4.1). In Article 4.1(e), Parties to the UNFCCC commit themselves to develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans for coastal zone management in a process of preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. This commitment has added a new dimension to ICZM. Whereas traditional ICZM focused on coastal development pressures, multiple-use conflicts and resource degradation, ICZM now includes a long-term sustainability component. The World Coast Conference, held in November 1993 in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, was held in response to Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 and Article 4.1(e) of the UNFCCC. The confer-ence brought together experts, decision-makers and representatives of non-governmental or-

23

ganisations to consider the relevance of coastal vulnerability to climate change to coastal zone management. Two of its objectives were to provide an opportunity for coastal countries to exchange information and experiences in assessing vulnerability to climate change and in developing coastal zone management plans and to contribute to the development of common concepts, techniques and tools for these two activities. The conference succeeded in building awareness of the importance of ICZM in reducing coastal vulnerability to climate change and the opportunities it presents (e.g., Bijlsma et al., 1996). One remaining challenge, however, is to translate the words of global initiatives into local action (see also the synthesis chapter of this thesis).

5.2. Private initiatives and responsibilities Private-sector interests in coastal zones are very diverse and include agriculture, fisheries, transportation, mining, manufacturing and tourism. In addition, space is required for human habitation and nature conservation. Private decision-makers include both individual house-holds and commercial companies. Their actions are triggered by market or welfare changes and are aimed at maximising their profit or utility (an economic concept referring to the de-gree of personal satisfaction an individual derives from consuming some quantity of a good or service at a particular point in time). Different companies and individuals have different ob-jectives and attitudes to the use of coastal resources, which may lead to conflicts. As stated before, ICZM is primarily a mechanism to avoid such multiple-use conflicts be-tween sectoral stakeholders. Whilst the responsibility for initiating an ICZM programme lies with the public sector, success depends largely on the will and motivation of the private sec-tor to adopt the objectives and principles of the programme. Therefore, from the moment the initiative towards developing an ICZM programme is taken, a continuous dialogue with private sector stakeholders is essential as part of an iterative process aimed at incorporating stakeholders’ concerns and developing broad understanding and support for the needs, means and ends of the programme. The private sector tends to have a relatively short planning horizon, which is not condu-cive to considering potential effects of climate change on its activities. Therefore, the public sector has the strongest and most direct incentives to adapt to climate change, although sea-level rise and its impacts can be a direct threat to the profitability of particularly the tourist sector and ports and harbours. Nonetheless, the private sector typically does not take the ini-tiative for coastal adaptation to climate change, because benefits are small or uncertain, and action is expected from the government to protect private sector interests (Klein et al., 2001). In developing countries, the private sector is generally a less significant economic force; so again, governments are expected to lead the way in coastal adaptation. However, in government-initiated coastal adaptation, the private sector is often involved in the planning, design and implementation of adaptation measures. Potentially successful public-private partnerships for ICZM are being developed particu-larly at a local level. For example, in the KERN region in Schleswig-Holstein in Germany (Kiel, Eckernförde, Rendsburg and Neumünster), local and district government, the chamber of commerce and academic institutes are working together to implement an ICZM programme that aims to strike a balance between economic and ecological interests. The programme does not yet have statutory powers, but the progress made so far is evidence that the process of consensus building does not require a formal institutional framework. A challenge for the next few years will be to translate the consensus into action.

6. Scope, methodology and structure of the thesis As explained in the introduction to this chapter, the work presented in this PhD thesis has not been carried out within a single, well-defined project. It combines and integrates results of a number of different studies commissioned and funded by a range of organisations. Using a consistent and academically sound analytical framework to design these different studies and present their results was usually not the clients’ most important objective. Nonetheless, the thesis presents a consistent approach to increasing the understanding of the three key con-cepts of vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to climate change. This section introduces

24

the central question underpinning the work presented in this thesis and discusses the meth-odology pursued towards answering this question. It then introduces the six papers and the synthesis chapter that constitute the remainder of the thesis. Finally, this section indicates the parts of the multi-authored papers for which the PhD candidate is responsible.

6.1. Problem definition and methodology The earlier parts of this chapter showed that coastal zones provide many goods and services crucial to human well-being. The economic opportunities offered by these goods and services have attracted many people and investments to the coast, leading to the unsustainable use and unrestricted development of coastal resources. Many coastal areas have been so heavily modified and intensively developed that their natural resilience to the effects of climate change has been significantly reduced. The importance of coastal resources to human society and the risk to which they may be exposed from climate change have triggered studies to assess the vulnerability of coastal zones to climate change. One of the aims of these studies has been to advise coastal planners and managers on the need and opportunity to implement adaptation options to reduce poten-tial impacts. Results of these studies were presented in Section 3.2. It can be argued that whilst these studies have raised awareness of the potential impacts of climate change on coastal zones and thus contributed to the international climate policy process, their usefulness for adaptation has been limited, especially in developing countries. Reasons for this limited usefulness include: �� Limited availability of relevant natural and socio-economic data; �� A bias of study teams towards the natural sciences; �� A lack of methodological guidance on adaptation assessment; �� A mismatch between the scale of the vulnerability assessment and the scale at which ad-

aptation options are implemented; �� A mismatch between the institutions involved in vulnerability assessment and those re-

sponsible for facilitating and implementing adaptation options. At the root of these five reasons lies a general lack of understanding of what adaptation is and how it could help to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Until recently, opportunities to learn from experience gained in natural hazard reduction and natural resource manage-ment, which have a tradition of adapting to climate variability, were not recognised. The work that is the basis for this PhD thesis has aimed at contributing to improved assessments of coastal vulnerability to climate change by developing a stronger conceptual and methodological basis for understanding the process of adaptation. It is a first step in an effort to ensure greater policy relevance of vulnerability assessments, as well as to improve the academic rigour and validity of assessments. Most of the work presented in this thesis is of a conceptual nature, using literature and case studies to develop new insights and ideas. Rather than applying a particular existing methodology based on data collection and empirical analysis, this PhD thesis provides the building blocks of a new methodology, which is yet to be applied and tested (see also the fi-nal chapter of this thesis).

6.2. Structure of the thesis In hindsight, the coastal chapter of the UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Im-pact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies (Klein and Nicholls, 1998) was the starting point for the conceptual and analytical thinking on coastal vulnerability to climate change. The pa-per by Klein and Nicholls (1999) provides the theoretical underpinning of this UNEP chapter, along with a framework for vulnerability assessment. This paper is the first of six peer-re-viewed academic papers that form the core of this thesis and can be seen as setting out the conceptual challenges explored in subsequent work. The second paper in this thesis (Klein et al., 1998) focuses on coastal resilience. It was a by-product of a study aimed at defining and making operational the concept of resilience for Dutch coastal management in the light of climate change and sea-level rise. This study was

25

conducted with Delft Hydraulics for the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. In distinguishing between morphological, ecological and socio-economic resil-ience, the paper shows the importance of taking an interdisciplinary approach to assessing coastal vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to climate change. The third paper (Klein and Bateman, 1998) presents the only empirical work in this the-sis. It is an environmental economic analysis of the value of recreation in a coastal freshwater nature reserve in North Norfolk, United Kingdom. The Norfolk Wildlife Trust used the results to argue against a recommendation in the Shoreline Management Plan for North Norfolk, which was to adapt to sea-level rise by implementing a policy of managed retreat. Such a policy would most likely lead to the disappearance of the nature reserve. The Norfolk Wildlife Trust encouraged the inclusion of the results of the environmental economic analysis in the cost-benefit analysis on which the recommendation for managed retreat was based. The fourth paper (Smit et al., 2000) is the only paper in this thesis that does not have a coastal focus. This paper was prepared to provide structure to the then emerging academic and policy debate on the desirability, feasibility and “assessability” of adaptation to climate change. Many of the concepts introduced in this paper, including the need to consider natural climate variability as well as human-induced climate change when defining needs and oppor-tunities for adaptation, have been adopted in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The process of adaptation and an approach to its assessment are analysed more closely in the fifth paper in this thesis (Klein et al., 1999). This paper presents coastal management ex-periences from The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Japan, which show that adaptation to natural variability and anticipated change is an iterative, cyclical process. Elements in this cycle are information collection and awareness raising, planning and design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. The paper argues that the failure to consider all four steps in adaptation assessments has constrained the development of adaptation strategies that are supported by the relevant actors and integrated into existing management. It introduces the term “adaptive capacity”, which has become a central focus for linking adaptation with de-velopment priorities. The final paper (Klein et al., 2001) uses the framework developed by Klein et al. (1999) to provide a detailed overview of the types of technologies that are available to plan, facili-tate and implement adaptation in coastal zones. It is based on the coastal adaptation chapter of the IPCC Special Report on Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer (Klein et al., 2000). This paper again links climate change with climate variability and empha-sises the importance of building capacity for technology transfer in developing countries. The concluding chapter of this thesis presents a synthesis of the six papers in the light of recent initiatives that build on the conceptual work on vulnerability, resilience and adapta-tion. It discusses in more detail than the preceding papers the need for adaptation in devel-oping countries and the subsequent importance of integrating adaptation policy with devel-opment activities. The chapter outlines a number of possible next steps than can be taken to advance the academic understanding of vulnerability, resilience and adaptation whilst in-creasing the adaptive capacity of developing countries.

6.3. Contribution to the papers The times when great minds could work in isolation on challenging research questions and produce meaningful results are long gone. No academic work of quality is possible without ex-tensive collaboration with other scientists. This is particularly the case for interdisciplinary research, which explains why all the following six papers are multi-authored. To enable the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel to verify whether this PhD thesis contains sufficient material of quality by the PhD candidate himself, Table 5 gives an overview of his contribu-tions to each of the papers.

26

Paper Contributions by R.J.T. Klein Klein and Nicholls (1999) This paper was written by Klein, based on the UNEP chapter by Klein and Nicholls

(1998). For the UNEP chapter Klein developed the conceptual idea and did most of the writing. Nicholls contributed sections on coastal morphodynamic processes, wetlands and aerial videography-assisted vulnerability assessment.

Klein et al. (1998) This paper was written by Klein, based partly on contributions from Smit, Goosen and Hulsbergen during a workshop.

Klein and Bateman (1998) This award-winning paper was written by Klein, based on his own survey and statistical analyses. Bateman helped to develop the survey methodology and interpret the results of the statistical analyses.

Smit et al. (2000) This paper was written mainly by Smit, based partly on text inputs from Burton and Klein and a literature survey by Wandel. Klein contributed to various parts of the paper, particularly to the typology of adaptation.

Klein et al. (1999) This paper was written mainly by Klein. Nicholls and Mimura contributed the UK and Japanese case studies.

Klein et al. (2001) This paper was written by Klein, based on the IPCC chapter by Klein et al. (2000). Klein was the co-ordinating lead author of the IPCC chapter, which benefited from text inputs from the other authors.

Table 5 — Respective contributions by the PhD candidate to the six published papers in this thesis.

References Adger, W.N., 1997: Sustainability and Social Resilience in Coastal Resource Use. CSERGE Working Paper Series No.

97-23, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich and University College London, UK, 39 pp.

Adger, W.N., 2000: Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364. Adger, W.N. and P.M. Kelly, 1999: Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Miti-

gation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3–4), 253–266. Alverson, D.L., M.H. Freeborg, S.A. Murawski and J.A. Pope, 1994: A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Dis-

cards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 339, Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome, Italy, 233 pp. Anderson, D.M. and D.J. Garrison (eds.), 1997: The ecology and oceanography of harmful algal blooms. Limnology

and Oceanography, 42(5,2), 1009–1305. Andreadakis, A.D., 1997: Wastewater treatment and disposal for the preservation of bathing and coastal water qual-

ity in touristic areas. Marine Chemistry, 58(3–4), 389–395. Baarse, G., 1995: Development of an Operational Tool for Global Vulnerability Assessment (GVA)—Update of the

Number of People at Risk Due to Sea Level Rise and Increased Flooding Probability. CZM Centre Publication No. 3, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague, The Netherlands, 17 pp.

Bijlsma, L., C.N. Ehler, R.J.T. Klein, S.M. Kulshrestha, R.F. McLean, N. Mimura, R.J. Nicholls, L.A. Nurse, H. Pérez Nieto, E.Z. Stakhiv, R.K. Turner and R.A. Warrick, 1996: Coastal zones and small islands. In: Climate Change 1995—Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss (eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 289–324.

Briassoulis, H. and J. van der Straaten (eds.), 1992: Tourism and the Environment—Regional, Economic and Policy Is-sues. Environment & Assessment Series No. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 169 pp.

Brochier, F. and E. Ramieri, 2001: Climate Change Impacts on the Mediterranean Coastal Zones. Nota di Lavoro 27.2001, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milano, Italy, 82 pp.

Burton, I., 1996: The growth of adaptation capacity: practice and policy. In: Adapting to Climate Change: An Inter-national Perspective, J.B. Smith, N. Bhatti, G.V. Menzhulin, R. Benioff, M. Campos, B. Jallow, F. Rijsberman, M.I. Budyko and R.K. Dixon (eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, pp. 55–67.

Burton, I., 1997: Vulnerability and adaptive response in the context of climate and climate change. Climatic Change, 36(1–2), 185–196.

Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J.M. Anderies and N. Abel, 2001: From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765–781.

Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin and J.L. Wright, 1996: Contingent valuation and revealed preference method-ologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72(1), 80–99.

Carter, R.W.G., 1988: Coastal Environments—An Introduction to the Physical, Ecological and Cultural Systems of Coastlines. Academic Press, London, UK, xv+617 pp.

Carter, T.R., M.L. Parry, S. Nishioka and H. Harasawa (eds.), 1994: Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, University College London and Centre for Global Environmental Research, London, UK and Tsukuba, Japan, x+59 pp.

Chapin, F.S., E.S. Zavaleta, V.Y. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds, D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack and S. Diaz, 2000: Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405, 234–242.

Cicin-Sain, B. (ed.), 1993: Integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21(1–3), 1–352.

27

Cicin-Sain, B. and R.W. Knecht, 1998: Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 499 pp.

Cicin-Sain, B., R.W. Knecht and G.W. Fisk, 1995: Growth in capacity for integrated coastal management since UNCED: an international perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, 29(1–3), 93–123.

Church, J.A., J.M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M.T. Nhuan, D. Qin and P.L. Woodworth, 2001: Changes in sea level. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. No-guer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.), Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK, pp. 639–693.

Cohen, J.E., C. Small, A. Mellinger, J. Gallup and J. Sachs, 1997: Estimates of coastal populations. Science, 278, 1211–1212.

Common, M.S., 1995: Sustainability and Policy: Limits to Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, xii+348 pp.

Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt, 1997: The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.

De Groot, R.S., 1992a: Functions of Nature—Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Deci-sion Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, The Netherlands, xviii+315 pp.

De Groot, R.S., 1992b: Functions and Economic Values of Coastal Protected Areas. MEDPAN Workshop on Economic Impact of the Mediterranean Coastal Protected Areas, Ajaccio, France, 26–28 September 1991, 17 pp.

De la Vega-Leinert, A.C., R.J. Nicholls and R.S.J. Tol (eds.), 2000a: Proceedings of the SURVAS Expert Workshop on European Vulnerability and Adaptation to Accelerated Sea-Level Rise. Hamburg, Germany, 19–21 June 2000, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, UK, viii+152 pp.

De la Vega-Leinert, A.C., R.J. Nicholls, A. Nasser Hassan and M. El-Raey (eds.), 2000b: Proceedings of the SURVAS Expert Workshop on African Vulnerability and Adaptation to Accelerated Sea-Level Rise. Cairo, Egypt, 5–8 No-vember 2000, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, UK, vi+104 pp.

Demora, S.J. and E. Pelletier, 1997: Environmental tributyltin research—past, present, future. Environmental Tech-nology, 18(12), 1169–1177.

Desenclos, J.C., 1996: Epidémiologie des risques toxiques et infectieux liés à la consommation de coquillages. Revue d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, 44(5), 437–454.

Dixon, J.A., L. Fallon Scura, R.A. Carpenter and P.B. Sherman, 1994: Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Second edition. Earthscan Publications, London, UK, xii+210 pp.

Dovers, S.R. and J.W. Handmer, 1992: Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global Environmental Change, 2(4), 262–276.

Downing, T.E., M.J. Watts and H.G. Bohle, 1996: Climate change and food insecurity: towards a sociology and geo-graphy of vulnerability. In: Climate Change and World Food Security, T.E. Downing (ed.), Springer Verlag, Ber-lin, Germany, pp. 183–206.

Dulvy, N.K., D.P. Stanwell-Smith, W.R.T. Darwall and C.J. Horrill, 1995: Coral mining at Mafia Island, Tanzania: a management dilemma. Ambio, 24(6), 358–365.

Edington, J.M. and M.A. Edington, 1986: Ecology, Recreation and Tourism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, viii+200 pp.

Ehler, C.N., 1993: Preparatory Workshop on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Responses to Climate Change. Proceedings of the IPCC/WCC'93 Western Hemisphere Workshop, New Orleans, LA, USA, 13–16 July 1993, Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA, 611 pp.

Ehler, C.N., B. Cicin-Sain, R. Knecht, R. South and R. Weiher, 1997: Guidelines to assist policy makers and managers of coastal areas in the integration of coastal management programs and national climate-change action plans. Ocean & Coastal Management, 37(1), 7–27.

Emery, K.O. and D.G. Aubrey, 1991: Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, USA, xiv+237 pp.

Fankhauser, S., 1995: Protection vs. retreat: estimating the costs of sea level rise. Environment and Planning A, 27(2), 299–319.

Feenstra, J.F., I. Burton, J.B. Smith and R.S.J. Tol (eds.), 1998: Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. Version 2.0, United Nations Environment Programme and Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Nairobi, Kenya and Amsterdam, The Netherlands, xxvi+422 pp.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, B. Walker, J. Bengtsson, F. Berkes, J. Colding, K. Danell, M. Falkenmark, L. Gordon, R. Kasperson, N. Kautsky, A. Kinzig, S. Levin, K.-G. Mäler, F. Moberg, L. Ohlsson, P. Olsson, E. Ostrom, W. Reid, J. Rockstroem, H. Savenije and U. Svedin, 2002: Resilience and Sus-tainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Environmental Advisory Council, Stockholm, Sweden, 73 pp.

Gilbert, A.J. and R. Janssen, 1998: Use of environmental functions to communicate the values of a mangrove ecosys-tem under different management regimes. Ecological Economics, 25(3), 323–346.

Goldberg, E.D., 1994: Coastal Zone Space—Prelude to Conflict? IOC Ocean Forum I, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, France, 138 pp.

Gommes, R., J. du Guerny, F. Nachtergaele and R. Brinkman, 1998: Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on Popula-tions and Agriculture. FAO SD-Dimensions Special, Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome, Italy, http://www.fao.org/sd/eidirect/EIre0045.htm.

Gordon, J.E., 1978: Structures—Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK, 395 pp. Gornitz, V., 2000: Impoundment, groundwater mining, and other hydrologic transformations: impacts on global sea

level rise. In: Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences, B.C. Douglas, M.S. Kearney and S.P. Leatherman (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 97–119.

Gornitz, V.M., R.C. Daniels, T.W. White and K.R. Birdwell, 1994: The development of a coastal risk assessment data-base: vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. Southeast. Journal of Coastal Research, special issue 12, 327–338.

28

Gornitz, V., C. Rosenzweig and D. Hillel, 1997: Effects of anthropogenic intervention in the land hydrological cycle on global sea level rise. Global and Planetary Change, 14(3–4), 147–161.

Grainger, R.J.R., 1997: Recent Trends in Global Fishery Production. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome, Italy, http://www.fao.org/fi/trends/catch/catch.asp.

Grainger, R.J.R. and S.M. Garcia, 1996: Chronicles of Marine Fishery Landings (1950–1994): Trend Analysis and Fish-eries Potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 359, Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome, Italy, 51 pp.

Gren, I.-M., C. Folke, R.K. Turner and I.J. Bateman, 1994: Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems. En-vironmental and Resource Economics, 4(1), 55–74.

Gröger, M. and H.-P. Plag, 1993: Estimations of a global sea level trend: limitations from the structure of the PSMSL global sea level data set. Global and Planetary Change, 8(3), 161–179.

Gulland, J.A. (ed.), 1971: The Fish Resources of the Ocean. Fishing News, West Byfleet, UK, xxvi+255 pp. Hanley, N. and C.L. Spash, 1993: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, UK, x+278 pp. Handmer, J.W. and S.R. Dovers, 1996: A typology of resilience: rethinking institutions for sustainable development.

Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 9(4), 482–511. Harvey, N., B. Clouston and P. Carvalho, 1999: Improving coastal vulnerability assessment methodologies for inte-

grated coastal zone management: an approach from South Australia. Australian Geographical Studies, 37(1), 50–69.

Hawkins, J.P. and C.M. Roberts, 1994: The growth of coastal tourism in the Red Sea: present and future effects on coral reefs. Ambio, 23(8), 503–508.

Holling, C.S., 1973: Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.

Hoozemans, F.M.J., M. Marchand and H.A. Pennekamp, 1993: Sea Level Rise: A Global Vulnerability Assessment—Vulnerability Assessments for Population, Coastal Wetlands and Rice Production on a Global Scale. 2nd revised edition, Delft Hydraulics and Rijkswaterstaat, Delft and The Hague, The Netherlands, xxxii+184 pp.

Houghton, T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.), 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, x+881 pp.

IPCC CZMS, 1990: Strategies for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise. Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup, Re-sponse Strategies Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague, The Netherlands, x+122 pp.

IPCC CZMS, 1992: A common methodology for assessing vulnerability to sea-level rise—second revision. In: Global Climate Change and the Rising Challenge of the Sea, Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup, Re-sponse Strategies Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague, The Netherlands, Appendix C, 27 pp.

ISDR, 2002: Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, iii+382 pp.

Jeftić, L., J. Milliman and G. Sestini (eds.), 1992: Climate Change and the Mediterranean—Environmental and Socie-tal Impacts of Climatic Change and Sea-Level Rise in the Mediterranean Region. Edward Arnold, London, UK, xii+673 pp.

Jeftić, L., S. Kečkeš and J.C. Pernetta (eds.), 1996: Climate Change and the Mediterranean—Environmental and So-cietal Impacts of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in the Mediterranean Region. Volume 2, Arnold, London, UK, xi+564 pp.

Kates, R.W, 1997: Climate change 1995—impacts, adaptations, and mitigation. Environment, 39(9), 29–33. Kay, R.C. and J. Alder, 1999: Coastal Planning and Management. E & FN Spon, London, UK, xxi+375 pp. Kay, R.C., I. Eliot, B. Caton, G. Morvell and P. Waterman, 1996: A review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change’s Common Methodology for Assessing the Vulnerability of Coastal Areas to Sea-Level Rise. Coastal Man-agement, 24, 165–188.

Kay, R.C. and J.E. Hay, 1993: A decision support approach to coastal vulnerability and resilience assessment: a tool for integrated coastal zone management. In: Vulnerability Assessment to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Zone Man-agement, R.F. McLean and N. Mimura (eds.), Proceedings of the IPCC/WCC’93 Eastern Hemisphere Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, 3–6 August 1993, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, Australia, pp. 213–225.

Klein, R.J.T., 1998: Towards better understanding, assessment and funding of climate adaptation. Change, 44, 15–19.

Klein, R.J.T., 2001: Adaptation to Climate Change in German Official Development Assistance—An Inventory of Ac-tivities and Opportunities, with a Special Focus on Africa. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenar-beit, Eschborn, Germany, 42 pp.

Klein, R.J.T. and I.J. Bateman, 1998: The recreational value of Cley Marshes Nature Reserve: an argument against managed retreat? Water and Environmental Management, 12(4), 280–285.

Klein, R.J.T., E.N. Buckley, J. Aston, R.J. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, N. Mizutani and P.D. Nunn, 2000: Coastal adaptation. In: Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer, B. Metz, O.R. David-son, J.W. Martens, S.N.M. van Rooijen and L.L. Van Wie-McGrory (eds.), Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 349–372.

Klein, R.J.T. and D.C. MacIver, 1999: Adaptation to climate variability and change: methodological issues. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3–4), 189–198

Klein, R.J.T. and R.J. Nicholls, 1998: Coastal zones. In: Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies, J.F. Feenstra, I. Burton, J.B. Smith and R.S.J. Tol (eds.), Version 2.0, United Na-tions Environment Programme and Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Nairobi, Kenya and Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 7.1–7.35.

Klein, R.J.T. and R.J. Nicholls, 1999: Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio, 28(2), 182–187. Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls and N. Mimura, 1999: Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC Technical

Guidelines be applied? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3–4), 51–64.

29

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston and E.N. Buckley, 2001: Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. Journal for Coastal Research, 17(3), 531–543.

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls and F. Thomalla, 2002: The Resilience of Coastal Megacities to Weather-Related Hazards. Workshop "The Future of Disaster Risk: Building Safer Cities", Disaster Management Facility, World Bank, Wash-ington, DC, USA, 4–6 December 2002, 21 pp.

Klein, R.J.T., M.J. Smit, H. Goosen and C.H. Hulsbergen, 1998: Resilience and vulnerability: coastal dynamics or Dutch dikes? The Geographical Journal, 164(3), 259–268.

Klein, R.J.T. and R.S.J. Tol, 1997: Adaptation to Climate Change: Options and Technologies—An Overview Paper. Technical Paper FCCC/TP/1997/3, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 33 pp.

Knight, D., B. Mitchell and G. Wall, 1997: Bali: sustainable development, tourism and coastal management. Ambio, 26(2), 90–96.

Leary, N.A., 1999: A framework for benefit-cost analysis of adaptation to climate change and climate variability, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3–4), 307–318.

Leatherman, S.P. (ed.), 1997: Island states at risk: global climate change, development and population. Journal of Coastal Research, special issue 24, 1–239.

Lenhart, S., S. Huq, L. José Mata, I. Nemešová, S. Toure and J.B. Smith (eds.), 1996: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change—A Synthesis of Results from the U.S. Country Studies Program. Interim Report, U.S. Country Studies Program, Washington, DC, USA, xxxv+366 pp.

Maul, G.A. (ed.), 1993: Climatic Change in the Intra-Americas Sea—Implications of Future Climate on the Ecosystems and Socio-Economic Structure in the Marine and Coastal Regions of the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Baha-mas, and the Northeast Coast of South America. Edward Arnold, London, UK, xii+389 pp.

McLean, R.F. and N. Mimura (eds.), 1993: Vulnerability Assessment to Sea Level Rise and Coastal Zone Management. Proceedings of the IPCC/WCC'93 Eastern Hemisphere Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, 3–6 August 1993, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, Australia, viii+429 pp.+apps.

Miller, M.L. and J. Auyong, 1991: Coastal zone tourism—a potent force affecting environment and society. Marine Policy, March, 75–99.

Mimura, N., M. Isobe and Y. Hosakawa, 1992: Impacts of sea level rise on Japanese coastal zones and response strategies. In: Global Climate Change and the Rising Challenge of the Sea, J. O'Callahan, (ed.). Proceedings of the Third IPCC CZMS Workshop, Margarita Island, Venezuela, 9–13 March 1992, National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA, pp. 329–349.

Mimura, N. and H. Yokoki (eds.), 2001: Global Change and Asia Pacific Coasts. Proceedings of the APN-SURVAS-LOICZ Joint Conference on Coastal Impacts of Climate Change and Adaptation in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kobe, Japan, 14–16 November 2000, Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research and Ibaraki University, Ibaraki, Japan, x+285 pp.

Nakićenović, N. and R. Swart (eds.), 2000: Emission Scenarios. Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 599 pp.

Nelson, J.G., R. Butler and G. Wall (eds.), 1993: Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Man-aging. Department of Geography Publication Series No. 37, Heritage Resources Centre Joint Publication No. 1, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, xxii+283 pp.

Nicholls, R.J., 1995a: Coastal megacities and climate change. GeoJournal, 37(3), 369–379. Nicholls, R.J., 1995b: Synthesis of vulnerability analysis studies. In: Proceedings of the World Coast Conference 1993,

P. Beukenkamp, P. Günther, R.J.T. Klein, R. Misdorp, D. Sadacharan and L.P.M. de Vrees (eds.), Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 1–5 November 1993, Coastal Zone Management Centre Publication No. 4, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 181–216.

Nicholls, R.J., 2002: Analysis of global impacts of sea-level rise: a case study of flooding. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 27(32–34), 1455–1466.

Nicholls, R.J. and J. Branson (eds.), 1998: Enhancing coastal resilience—planning for an uncertain future. The Geo-graphical Journal, 164(3), 255–343.

Nicholls, R.J., F.M.J. Hoozemans and M. Marchand, 1999: Increasing flood risk and wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses—the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 9, S69–S87.

Nicholls, R.J. and S.P. Leatherman (eds.), 1995: The potential impact of accelerated sea-level rise on developing countries. Journal of Coastal Research, special issue 14, 1–324.

Nicholls, R.J. and N. Mimura, 1998: Regional issues raised by sea-level rise and their policy implications. Climate Re-search, 11(1), 5–18.

Nicholls, R.J. and C. Small, 2002: Improved estimates of coastal population and exposure to hazards released. EOS Transactions, 83(2), 301, 305.

O’Callahan, J. (ed.), 1994: Global Climate Change and the Rising Challenge of the Sea. Proceedings of the third IPCC CZMS Workshop, Isla de Margarita, Venezuela, 9–13 March 1992, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, Silver Spring, MD, USA, v+691 pp.

OECD, 1997: Tourism Policy and International Tourism in OECD Countries. Publication No. OCDE/GD(97)173, Organi-sation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 184 pp.

Parry, M., N. Arnell, M. Hulme, R. Nicholls and M. Livermore, 1998: Adapting to the inevitable. Nature, 395, 741. Pearce, D.W. and R.K. Turner, 1990: Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf,

Hemel Hempstead, UK, xiii+378 pp. Peterson, G.D., C.R. Allen and C.S. Holling, 1998: Ecological resilience, biodiversity and scale. Ecosystems, 1(1), 6–

18. Pielke, R.A., Jr., 1998: Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global Environmental Change, 8(2), 159–

170. Pimm, S.L., 1984: The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307, 321–326. Post, J.C. and C.G. Lundin, 1996: Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Environmentally Sustainable

Development Studies and Monographs Series No. 9, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 16 pp.

30

Pruss, A., 1998: Review of epidemiological studies on health effects from exposure to recreational water. Interna-tional Journal of Epidemiology, 27(1), 1–9.

Sahagian, D., 2000: Global physical effects of anthropogenic hydrological alterations: sea level and water redistribu-tion. Global and Planetary Change, 25(1–2), 39–48.

Sahagian, D.L., F.W. Schwartz and D.K. Jacobs, 1994: Direct anthropogenic contributions to sea level rise in the twentieth century. Nature, 367, 54–57.

Schulze, E.D. and H.A. Mooney, 1993: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, xxvii+525 pp.

Small, C. and J.E. Cohen, 1999: Continental physiography, climate and the global distribution of human population. In: Toward Digital Earth, G. Xu and Y. Chen (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Digital Earth, Beijing, China, 29 November – 2 December 1999, Science Press, Beijing, China, pp. 965–971.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein and J. Wandel, 2000: An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climatic Change, 45(1), 223–251.

Smith, K., 1992: Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. Routledge Physical Environment Se-ries, Routledge, London, UK, xx+324 pp.

Ten Hallers-Tjabbes, C.C., 1997: Tributyltin and policies for antifouling. Environmental Technology, 18(12), 1265–1268.

Timmerman, P., 1981: Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models and Possible Cli-matic Applications. Environmental Monograph No. 1, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, ii+42 pp.

Tol, R.S.J., R.J.T. Klein, H.M.A. Jansen and H. Verbruggen, 1996: Some economic considerations on the importance of proactive integrated coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 32(1), 39–55.

Tooley, M. and S. Jelgersma (eds.), 1992: Impacts of Sea Level Rise on European Coastal Lowlands. Blackwell, Ox-ford, UK, xv+267 pp.

Turner, R.K., 1988: Wetland conservation: economics and ethics. In: Economics, Growth and Sustainable Environ-ments—Essays in Memory of Richard Lecomber, D. Collard, D.W. Pearce and D. Ulph (eds.), Macmillan, Houndsmills, UK, pp. 121–159.

Turner, R.K. and W.N. Adger, 1996: Coastal Zone Resources Assessment Guidelines. LOICZ Reports & Studies No. 4, Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone, Texel, The Netherlands, iv+101 pp.

Turner, R.K., S. Subak and W.N. Adger, 1996: Pressures, trends, and impacts in coastal zones: interactions between socioeconomic and natural systems. Environmental Management, 20(2), 159–173.

UNPD, 1999: The World at Six Billion. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, New York, NY, USA, vii+63 pp.

UNPD, 2001: World Population Prospects—The 2000 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Na-tions Secretariat, New York, NY, USA, xii+64 pp.

UNEP, 2002: Global Environment Outlook 3—Past, Present and Future Perspectives. Earthscan, London, UK, xxxiii+426 pp.

Vallega, A., 1996: The coastal use structure within the coastal system—a sustainable development-consistent ap-proach. Journal of Marine Systems, 7(1), 95–115.

Vellinga, P., R.S. de Groot and R.J.T. Klein, 1994: An ecologically sustainable biosphere. In: The Environment: To-wards a Sustainable Future, Dutch Committee for Long-Term Environmental Policy (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 317–346.

Vellinga, P. and S.P. Leatherman, 1989: Sea level rise, consequences and policies. Climatic Change, 15(1–2), 175–189.

Vörösmarty, C.J. and D. Sahagian, 2000: Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial water cycle. Bioscience, 50(9), 753–765.

Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss and D.J. Dokken (eds.), 1998: The Regional Impacts of Climate Change—An Assessment of Vulnerability. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, x+517 pp.

WCC’93, 1994: Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challenges of the 21st Century. Report of the World Coast Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 1–5 November 1993. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague, The Netherlands, 49 pp.+apps.

West, J.J. and H. Dowlatabadi, 1999: On assessing the economic impacts of sea-level rise on developed coasts. In: Climate, Change and Risk, T.E. Downing, A.A. Olsthoorn and R.S.J. Tol (eds.), Routledge, London, UK, pp. 205–220.

West, J.J., M.J. Small and H. Dowlatabadi, 2001: Storms, investor decisions and the economic impacts of sea level rise. Climatic Change, 48(2–3), 317–342.

White, A.T., V. Barker and G. Tantrigama, 1997: Using integrated coastal management and economics to conserve coastal tourism resources in Sri Lanka. Ambio, 26(6), 335–344.

WRI, 1996: World Resources 1996–97: A Guide to the Global Environment—The Urban Environment. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme and The World Bank, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, xvi+368 pp.

Yohe, G.W. and J. Neumann, 1997: Planning for sea level rise and shore protection under climate uncertainty. Cli-matic Change, 37(1), 243–270.

Yohe, G.W., J. Neumann, P. Marshall and H. Ameden, 1996: The economic cost of greenhouse-induced sea-level rise for developed property in the United States. Climatic Change, 32(3), 387–410.