Table 4 Different methods
for vulnerability
assessment in coastal areas
Methods
Comments
IPCC Common Methodology
Widely used and criticized
EPA International Project
Methodology
Focuses on land loss impacts
US Country Studies Methodology
Develops EPA International Project
Methodology
UNEP Handbook Methodology All impacts considered. Uses Figure 4
as its conceptual base
South Pacific Islands Methodology Addresses criticisms of Common
Methodology, but results are
qualitative to semi-quantitative
RIKS Decision Support
Methodology
Integrated model approach
5 The Future of Vulnerability Assessments
Sea-level rise and climate change presents an important challenge for the future,
and yet our understanding of the issues, particularly with regard to adaptation,
remains poor. A range of vulnerability assessment methodologies are available,
although many are related (Table 4). The UNEP Guidelines were developed
using the conceptual model shown in Figure 4. To further help structure future
assessments, Table 5 suggests a hierarchy of assessments from ‘quick and dirty’
screening assessments, through traditional vulnerability assessments, to studies
that are designed to provide coastal planners and managers with detailed
technical guidance. With this suggested structure in mind, it is hoped that factors
such as effort, amount of data collection and appropriate models could be made
more explicit. Considering erosion and related changes, a screening assessment
might use the Bruun ‘rule-of-thumb’, a vulnerability assessment might use the
Bruun rule coupled to a longshore transport model, while a planning assessment
might use a suite of models within a GIS framework and bounded using the
coastal tract cascade.
B. Cicin-Sain, C. Ehler, R. Knecht, R. South and R. Weiher, Guidelines for Integrating Coastal
Management Programs and National Climate Change Action Plans, International Workshop:
Planning for Climate Change Through Integrated Coastal Management, February 1997, Taipei.
NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 1997.
R. J. Nicholls and S. P. Leatherman (eds.), Potential impacts of accelerated sea-level rise on
developing countries, J. Coastal Res., 1995, Special Issue No. 14.
S. P. Leatherman and G. W. Yohe, Coastal impact and adaptation assessment, in R. Benioff, S.
Guill and J. Lee (eds), Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments — An International Handbook,
Version 1.1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 5.63—5.76, H.1—H.39.
K. Yamada, P. D. Nunn, N. Mimura, S. Machida and M. Yamamoto, Methodology for the
assessment of vulnerability of South Pacific island countries to sea-level rise and climate change.
J. Global Environ. Eng., 1995, 1, 101—125.
G. Engelen, R. White, I. Uljee and S. Wargnies, Numerical modeling of small island
socio-economics to achieve sustainable development, in G. A. Maul (ed.), Small Islands: Marine
Science and Sustainable Development, Coastal and Estuarine Studies Volume 51, American
Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 1996, p. 437—463.
M. Capobianco, H. J. DeVriend, R. J. Nicholls and M. J. F. Stive, Coastal area impact and
vulnerability assessment: a morphodynamic modeller’s point of view, J. Coastal Res., 1999, 15,
701—716.
R. J. Nicholls
104
for vulnerability
assessment in coastal areas
Methods
Comments
IPCC Common Methodology
Widely used and criticized
EPA International Project
Methodology
Focuses on land loss impacts
US Country Studies Methodology
Develops EPA International Project
Methodology
UNEP Handbook Methodology All impacts considered. Uses Figure 4
as its conceptual base
South Pacific Islands Methodology Addresses criticisms of Common
Methodology, but results are
qualitative to semi-quantitative
RIKS Decision Support
Methodology
Integrated model approach
5 The Future of Vulnerability Assessments
Sea-level rise and climate change presents an important challenge for the future,
and yet our understanding of the issues, particularly with regard to adaptation,
remains poor. A range of vulnerability assessment methodologies are available,
although many are related (Table 4). The UNEP Guidelines were developed
using the conceptual model shown in Figure 4. To further help structure future
assessments, Table 5 suggests a hierarchy of assessments from ‘quick and dirty’
screening assessments, through traditional vulnerability assessments, to studies
that are designed to provide coastal planners and managers with detailed
technical guidance. With this suggested structure in mind, it is hoped that factors
such as effort, amount of data collection and appropriate models could be made
more explicit. Considering erosion and related changes, a screening assessment
might use the Bruun ‘rule-of-thumb’, a vulnerability assessment might use the
Bruun rule coupled to a longshore transport model, while a planning assessment
might use a suite of models within a GIS framework and bounded using the
coastal tract cascade.
B. Cicin-Sain, C. Ehler, R. Knecht, R. South and R. Weiher, Guidelines for Integrating Coastal
Management Programs and National Climate Change Action Plans, International Workshop:
Planning for Climate Change Through Integrated Coastal Management, February 1997, Taipei.
NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 1997.
R. J. Nicholls and S. P. Leatherman (eds.), Potential impacts of accelerated sea-level rise on
developing countries, J. Coastal Res., 1995, Special Issue No. 14.
S. P. Leatherman and G. W. Yohe, Coastal impact and adaptation assessment, in R. Benioff, S.
Guill and J. Lee (eds), Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments — An International Handbook,
Version 1.1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 5.63—5.76, H.1—H.39.
K. Yamada, P. D. Nunn, N. Mimura, S. Machida and M. Yamamoto, Methodology for the
assessment of vulnerability of South Pacific island countries to sea-level rise and climate change.
J. Global Environ. Eng., 1995, 1, 101—125.
G. Engelen, R. White, I. Uljee and S. Wargnies, Numerical modeling of small island
socio-economics to achieve sustainable development, in G. A. Maul (ed.), Small Islands: Marine
Science and Sustainable Development, Coastal and Estuarine Studies Volume 51, American
Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 1996, p. 437—463.
M. Capobianco, H. J. DeVriend, R. J. Nicholls and M. J. F. Stive, Coastal area impact and
vulnerability assessment: a morphodynamic modeller’s point of view, J. Coastal Res., 1999, 15,
701—716.
R. J. Nicholls
104