Search results

This volume details research underpinning the 'Coastal Simulator' developed by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The Simulator provides a framework to analyze long term coastal evolution taking account of all the relevant factors. These include the uncertain future climate and other conditions, such as land use change and allows evaluation of diverse management responses. Coastal zones exemplify the environmental pressures we face: their beauty attracts settlement, they offer potential for diverse economic activities, and they are sensitive natural habitats for important species, as well as providing a range of ecosystem services. They are also extremely vulnerable to the vicissitudes of climate change, which include rising sea levels and changes in extreme events such as storms. With large populations living in coastal and estuarine cities facing the ongoing threat of inundation, coordinated management is essential, especially as coastal zones form a linked system in which piecemeal, uncoordinated management could be counterproductive. The Simulator's current detailed application to the Norfolk coast goes from global climate modelling and broad socio-economic change to the details of evolving coastal habitats, coastal erosion and coastal flood risk and their societal implications. This framework reflects the work of a multi-disciplinary team of key players who analysed these diverse factors in a coherent and integrated manner. The book offers a compelling synthesis of the lessons learned so far at national and international levels, drawing on the expertise of policy makers as well as respected figures in the field

Abstract. Failure to consider the costs of adaptation strategies can be seen by decision makers as a barrier to implementing coastal protection measures. In order to validate adaptation strategies to sea-level rise in the form of coastal protection, a consistent and repeatable assessment of the costs is necessary. This paper significantly extends current knowledge on cost estimates by developing – and implementing using real coastal dike data – probabilistic functions of dike costs. Data from Canada and the Netherlands are analysed and related to published studies from the US, UK, and Vietnam in order to provide a reproducible estimate of typical sea dike costs and their uncertainty. We plot the costs divided by dike length as a function of height and test four different regression models. Our analysis shows that a linear function without intercept is sufficient to model the costs, i.e. fixed costs and higher-order contributions such as that due to the volume of core fill material are less significant. We also characterise the spread around the regression models which represents an uncertainty stemming from factors beyond dike length and height. Drawing an analogy with project cost overruns, we employ log-normal distributions and calculate that the range between 3x and x∕3 contains 95 % of the data, where x represents the corresponding regression value. We compare our estimates with previously published unit costs for other countries. We note that the unit costs depend not only on the country and land use (urban/non-urban) of the sites where the dikes are being constructed but also on characteristics included in the costs, e.g. property acquisition, utility relocation, and project management. This paper gives decision makers an order of magnitude on the protection costs, which can help to remove potential barriers to developing adaptation strategies. Although the focus of this research is sea dikes, our approach is applicable and transferable to other adaptation measures.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.