and retreat is now being more seriously evaluated. Klein et al. have given
examples of appropriate technologies for each of these measures. In practice,
many responses may be hybrid and combine elements of more than one
approach. Adaptation for one sector may exacerbate impacts elsewhere and this
needs to be considered in any assessment. A good example is coastal squeeze of
coastal ecosystems due to hard defences, and there is a need to consider the
balance between protecting socio-economic activity and the ecological functioning
of the coastal zone under rising sea levels.
The most appropriate timing for a response needs to be considered in terms of
anticipatory versus reactive planned adaptation (or in practical terms, what
should we do today versus wait and see until tomorrow?). Anticipatory decisions
are made with more uncertainty than reactive decisions, which will have the
benefit of future knowledge. However, wait and see may lock in an adverse
direction of development which increases exposure to sea-level rise. In terms of
impacts, Figure 8 summarizes these decisions. Sea-level rise has potential
impacts. Anticipatory planned adaptation can reduce these potential impacts to
the initial impacts. Reactive adaptation (including autonomous adaptation) in
response to the initial impacts further reduces the impacts to the residual impacts.
The realistic magnitude of the initial and residual impacts is a key measure of
vulnerability, although many assessments focus only on evaluating potential
impacts.
The coastal zone is an area where anticipatory adaptation needs to be carefully
considered as many decisions at the coast have long-term implications.
Examples of anticipatory adaptation in coastal zones include upgraded flood
defences and waste water discharges, higher levels for reclamation and new
bridges, and building setbacks to prevent development.
While there is limited experience of adaptation to climate change, there is
considerable experience of adapting to climate variability and we can draw on
this experience to inform decision making under a changing climate. An
analysis of the evolution of coastal zone management in the Netherlands, UK
and Japan shows that adaptation to coastal problems is a process, rather than
just the implementation of technical options. Four stages in the adaptation
process related to (1) information and awareness building, (2) planning and
design, (3) evaluation and (4) monitoring and evaluation were evident within
J. H. M. De Ruig, Coastline management in the Netherlands: human use versus natural dynamics,
J. Coastal Conserv., 1998, 4, 127—134.
R. J. T. Klein, M. J. Smit, H. Goosen and C. H. Hulsbergen, Resilience and vulnerability: coastal
dynamics or Dutch dikes?, Geogr. J., 1998, 164, 259—268.
R. J. T. Klein, R. J. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston and E. N. Buckley,
Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones, J. Coastal Res., 2001, 17,
531—543.
R. J. T. Klein, Towards better understanding, assessment and funding of climate adaptation,
Change, 1998, 44, 15—19.
J. B. Smith, Setting priorities for adapting to climate change, Global Environ. Change, 1997, 7, 251—264.
S. Fankhauser, J. B. Smith and R. S. J. Tol, Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide
adaptation decisions, Ecol. Econ., 1999, 30, 67—78.
R. J. T. Klein, R. J. Nicholls and N. Mimura, Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC
Technical Guidelines be applied?, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1999, 4,
51—64.
R. J. Nicholls
102
examples of appropriate technologies for each of these measures. In practice,
many responses may be hybrid and combine elements of more than one
approach. Adaptation for one sector may exacerbate impacts elsewhere and this
needs to be considered in any assessment. A good example is coastal squeeze of
coastal ecosystems due to hard defences, and there is a need to consider the
balance between protecting socio-economic activity and the ecological functioning
of the coastal zone under rising sea levels.
The most appropriate timing for a response needs to be considered in terms of
anticipatory versus reactive planned adaptation (or in practical terms, what
should we do today versus wait and see until tomorrow?). Anticipatory decisions
are made with more uncertainty than reactive decisions, which will have the
benefit of future knowledge. However, wait and see may lock in an adverse
direction of development which increases exposure to sea-level rise. In terms of
impacts, Figure 8 summarizes these decisions. Sea-level rise has potential
impacts. Anticipatory planned adaptation can reduce these potential impacts to
the initial impacts. Reactive adaptation (including autonomous adaptation) in
response to the initial impacts further reduces the impacts to the residual impacts.
The realistic magnitude of the initial and residual impacts is a key measure of
vulnerability, although many assessments focus only on evaluating potential
impacts.
The coastal zone is an area where anticipatory adaptation needs to be carefully
considered as many decisions at the coast have long-term implications.
Examples of anticipatory adaptation in coastal zones include upgraded flood
defences and waste water discharges, higher levels for reclamation and new
bridges, and building setbacks to prevent development.
While there is limited experience of adaptation to climate change, there is
considerable experience of adapting to climate variability and we can draw on
this experience to inform decision making under a changing climate. An
analysis of the evolution of coastal zone management in the Netherlands, UK
and Japan shows that adaptation to coastal problems is a process, rather than
just the implementation of technical options. Four stages in the adaptation
process related to (1) information and awareness building, (2) planning and
design, (3) evaluation and (4) monitoring and evaluation were evident within
J. H. M. De Ruig, Coastline management in the Netherlands: human use versus natural dynamics,
J. Coastal Conserv., 1998, 4, 127—134.
R. J. T. Klein, M. J. Smit, H. Goosen and C. H. Hulsbergen, Resilience and vulnerability: coastal
dynamics or Dutch dikes?, Geogr. J., 1998, 164, 259—268.
R. J. T. Klein, R. J. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston and E. N. Buckley,
Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones, J. Coastal Res., 2001, 17,
531—543.
R. J. T. Klein, Towards better understanding, assessment and funding of climate adaptation,
Change, 1998, 44, 15—19.
J. B. Smith, Setting priorities for adapting to climate change, Global Environ. Change, 1997, 7, 251—264.
S. Fankhauser, J. B. Smith and R. S. J. Tol, Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide
adaptation decisions, Ecol. Econ., 1999, 30, 67—78.
R. J. T. Klein, R. J. Nicholls and N. Mimura, Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC
Technical Guidelines be applied?, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1999, 4,
51—64.
R. J. Nicholls
102