Therefore, it is important to continue to develop both the science of
vulnerability assessment and its application to inform coastal policy at all levels.
By definition, this must be a multi-disciplinary activity which brings together
relevant natural, engineering and social sciences in a policy-relevant manner.
Review of the available studies and experience shows that there are still
important barriers to conducting comprehensive impact and response analyses,
including:
E incomplete knowledge of the relevant processes affected by sea-level rise and
their interactions;
E insufficient data on existing conditions;
E difficulty in developing the local and regional scenarios of future change;
E lack of appropriate analytical methodologies for some impacts.
Most existing vulnerability assessments have focussed on a 1 m rise in global
sea level on the present (1990s) situation applied directly as a relative sea-level rise
scenario. In addition, only the direct effects of sea-level rise such as
inundation and erosion were considered and the dynamic processes that produce
autonomous adaptation such as wetland response to sea-level rise were ignored
(i.e. sea-level rise is instantaneous, rather than progressive). If they are interpreted
with the relevant assumptions in mind, these studies provide important insights
into the potential impacts of sea-level rise. However, if taken literally, they are
clearly unrealistic.
It is noteworthy that many studies have difficulties defining appropriate
climate scenarios and spend a disproportionate amount of effort on this stage.
Given the large uncertainties about future relative sea levels, particularly when
meteo-oceanographic effects are considered, it would be prudent for future
vulnerability assessments to consider side-stepping this issue by developing
response surfaces for sea-level rise scenarios from no rise up to 1.5 m by 2100.
Therefore, as scientific knowledge on regional sea-level rise improves, so the
impacts can be rapidly reinterpreted based on existing studies. For long-term
issues (e.g. nuclear power plants in coastal locations), it would also be prudent to
consider the potential impacts of collapse of the WAIS, at least at the qualitative level.
Most recently, the SURVAS Project considered the future of vulnerability
assessment studies. It was recommended that future assessments consider the
following issues.
E Place sea-level rise in a broader context of change and today’s problems
including consideration of:
— other climate change;
— extreme events;
— non-climate changes;
E Assess the cascade of impacts from the natural system to and through the
R. J. Nicholls and A. C. de la Vega-Leinert, Introduction/Recommendations, Proceedings of the
SURVAS Overview Workshop on the Future of Vulnerability and Adaptation Studies, 28—30 June
2001, London, UK, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, UK, in preparation
(will be available online at: http://www.survas.mdx.ac.uk).
R. J. Nicholls
106
vulnerability assessment and its application to inform coastal policy at all levels.
By definition, this must be a multi-disciplinary activity which brings together
relevant natural, engineering and social sciences in a policy-relevant manner.
Review of the available studies and experience shows that there are still
important barriers to conducting comprehensive impact and response analyses,
including:
E incomplete knowledge of the relevant processes affected by sea-level rise and
their interactions;
E insufficient data on existing conditions;
E difficulty in developing the local and regional scenarios of future change;
E lack of appropriate analytical methodologies for some impacts.
Most existing vulnerability assessments have focussed on a 1 m rise in global
sea level on the present (1990s) situation applied directly as a relative sea-level rise
scenario. In addition, only the direct effects of sea-level rise such as
inundation and erosion were considered and the dynamic processes that produce
autonomous adaptation such as wetland response to sea-level rise were ignored
(i.e. sea-level rise is instantaneous, rather than progressive). If they are interpreted
with the relevant assumptions in mind, these studies provide important insights
into the potential impacts of sea-level rise. However, if taken literally, they are
clearly unrealistic.
It is noteworthy that many studies have difficulties defining appropriate
climate scenarios and spend a disproportionate amount of effort on this stage.
Given the large uncertainties about future relative sea levels, particularly when
meteo-oceanographic effects are considered, it would be prudent for future
vulnerability assessments to consider side-stepping this issue by developing
response surfaces for sea-level rise scenarios from no rise up to 1.5 m by 2100.
Therefore, as scientific knowledge on regional sea-level rise improves, so the
impacts can be rapidly reinterpreted based on existing studies. For long-term
issues (e.g. nuclear power plants in coastal locations), it would also be prudent to
consider the potential impacts of collapse of the WAIS, at least at the qualitative level.
Most recently, the SURVAS Project considered the future of vulnerability
assessment studies. It was recommended that future assessments consider the
following issues.
E Place sea-level rise in a broader context of change and today’s problems
including consideration of:
— other climate change;
— extreme events;
— non-climate changes;
E Assess the cascade of impacts from the natural system to and through the
R. J. Nicholls and A. C. de la Vega-Leinert, Introduction/Recommendations, Proceedings of the
SURVAS Overview Workshop on the Future of Vulnerability and Adaptation Studies, 28—30 June
2001, London, UK, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, UK, in preparation
(will be available online at: http://www.survas.mdx.ac.uk).
R. J. Nicholls
106