1. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Methods for assessing coastal vulnerability to climate change Background Paper Expert Meeting – 8-9 June 2011 E. Ramieri (Thetis), A. Hartley (MetOffice), A. Barbanti (Thetis), F. Duarte Santos (FFCUL), P. Laihonen (Syke), N. Marinova (Alterra), M. Santini (CMCC)

2. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Context October 2010 expert meeting on methodological aspects (and related ETC/ACC Technical Paper); main conclusions:  Coastal vulnerability assessment initially needs the clear definition of policy and decision making objectives and related questions;  Existing EU Directives and policies provide a good policy framework to define coastal vulnerability objectives and more in general to support coastal adaptation to climate change  Different tools may be indicated to approach coastal vulnerability assessment at different spatial and temporal scales, in different regions and for different policy purposes  A multi-hazard approach is required in assessing vulnerability of coastal zones to climate changes  Vulnerability assessment should possibly consider also the analysis of current and future adaptation strategies and measures. Specific data are needed to address this component  Data availability is still a key issue

3. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Workshop objectives Objectives: Identify one or few methods to be operatively applied for the assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise for the European and/or Regional Sea context; Provide recommendations for an appropriate and efficient use of existing methods for mapping and analysing vulnerability and risks of coastal systems to climate change and sea level rise at the European and Regional Sea context; Provide recommendations for the further improvement of available approaches and methods. Workshop feedbacks will be used to draft in the final ETC/CCA Technical Paper

4. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Coastal vulnerability EEA, 2010a; ETC-ACC, 2010b IPCC defines vulnerability to climate change as “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity “ An operational definition is required; a vulnerability assessment should start by defining the policy or scientific objective as clearly as possible, and to choose the scope and methods accordingly Regional approach is need: vulnerability depends on the specific local and regional characteristics Furthermore vulnerability is dynamic, since vary by time Adaptation is generally poorly addressed in coastal management studies Climate change vulnerability has to refer to the wider ICZM context

5. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Relevant characteristics – evaluation criteria Applicability at the European or Regional Sea scale Spatial resolution at least as detailed as the DIVA model (coastal segment of about 70 km) – segment vs. areal analysis Possibility to address different temporal scenarios (e.g. 2050 and 2100) Relevance for assessing vulnerability related to more key climate change impacts. Applicability to different typologies of coastal systems Possibility to assess social, economic and ecological risks of climate change in coastal regions. Consideration of adaptation measures. Possibility to vary assumptions and scenarios Consideration of regional climate change scenarios. Climate hazards, in particular sea level rise, vary substantially across Europe. Assessment of uncertainties Availability of underlying data and/or models completeness vs. complexity/simplicity

6. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Assessment methods - typologies Index-based methods, also including related GIS applications; GIS-based decision support systems Methods based on dynamic computer models Visualisation tools

7. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Index based methods Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) – “basic formulation” Simple to use, focus on physical variables, not including socio-economic aspects Coastal Vulnerability Index to Sea Level Rise – CVI (SLR) (Özyurt, 2007; Özyurt et al., 2008) Integration of 5 sub-indexes each one corresponding to a specific sea-level rise impact (coastal erosion, flooding, permanent inundation, salt water intrusion to groundwater, saltwater intrusion to rivers); each of them is based on both physical and human influenced variables Composite Vulnerability Index (Szlafsztein and Sterr, 2007) Based on assessment of both natural and socio-economic variables than aggregated; output: natural vulnerability index, socio-economic vulnerability index, total vulnerability index Multi-scale coastal vulnerability index (McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010) Focus on erosion; integration of three sub-indexes (coastal characteristics, coastal forcing, socio-economic); variables depend on the application scale Eurosion approach (Final Report – Part III, May 2004) 13 indicators (regional level) related to current and expected future exposure to coastal erosion and flooding, pressure and impact scoring, rating (0, 1, 2)

8. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 GIS-based decision support systems DESYCO (Torresan et al., 2010) DSS for coastal hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment, considering different climate change related drivers, impacts (inundation, coastal flooding, erosion, impact on soil and groundwater, water quality and biodiversity) and coastal receptors (e.g. beach and dunes, wetlands, protected areas, hydrological system, etc.). The main objective is to assist coastal communities in planning adaptation measures Open-source GIS based system; it is not limited to a fixed suite of data, models, indicators and/or scenarios (flexible tool); main constrain in the application appears to be linked to data availability and relative limited testing; method can be scaled up, likely requiring simplification (of data and scheme)

9. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Methods based on dynamic computer models (I) Table 4-6 summaries main models characteristics, advantages and disadvantages; mainly based on ETC/ACC (2010b) and McLeod et al. (2010). At this stage of the analysis, three models are considered not totally matching EEA’s objectives and requirements: BTLESS; high expertise to be run, local-regional scale, mainly research purposes, focus on wetlands vulnerability SLAMM; medium-high expertise to be run, also due to the great range of considered variables, good option at the local and regional level, specifically tailored for the analysis of coastal wetland changes and vulnerability FUND; coarse spatial resolution (16 world regions only), difficulty of identifying and validating the underlying data sources and impact response functions At this stage of the analysis, three models are considered useful to match EEA’s objectives and requirements: Delft 3D SimCLIM DIVA

10. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Methods based on dynamic computer models (II) ModelMain advantageMain disavantage Delft3D It can be applied from the local to the global scale Robustness and accuracy of the modelling suite Incorporates large sets of climate change impacts Open source platform The validation requires continuous attention It requires fairly detailed site specific data which is often relatively difficult to get (McLeod, 2010). Applicability to versatile topographic and climatic conditions (e.g. highly fragmented coastlines, variable bathymetry, ice coat) partially questionable for the moment SimCLIM. It supports integrated impact assessment at various spatial scales (from local to global) It is user-friendly and quick-running; it is flexible in generating scenarios and examining uncertainties It allows users to examine climate variability and extremes as well as long- term change Sea-level scenario generator is adaptable to some General Circulation Models (GCMs), but not to all Disadvantages related to the use of GCMs More advance shoreline model, apart from the used Bruun rule, may be required to improve the assessment of coastal erosion (Cowell et al., 2006) DIVA Robust tool for coastal vulnerability assessment from global to national/regional level The tool enables the user to address various key impacts and possible pre-defined adaptation strategies Already used at the European level (Richards J. and Nicholls R.J., 2009; Hinkel et al., 2009) Open-source model Limited model resolution, DIVA is not appropriate for local scale application It does not consider ecosystem-based adaptation measures It requires medium-high expertise

11. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Summary of assessment methods Table 4-7 aims to provide a base to help structuring and focusing the workshop discussion; feedbacks will be also used to fine-tune the table Based on ETC/ACC (2010b), McLeod et al. (2010) and other scientific literature It summaries main methods characteristics in relation to identified criteria: Spatial scale Spatial resolution Temporal scale Main drivers of change Main climate change impacts Coastal systems Assessment targets Adaptation measures Main data input Output

12. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Data availability (I) Sea Level Rise Regional past trends and projections are fundamental to properly consider regional differences Gravitational and elastic changes due to large land ice mass (Antarctica and Greenland) shrinking (ice sheet fingerprint) Regional hydrological and meteorological processes, e.g. projected salinity increase in the Mediterranean Subsidence For the last decades: satellite data (resolution 20 x 20 m; vertical accuracy 1 mm) – ERS and ENVISAT However, long term projections need the analysis of long series (palaeo-geographic analysis); European wide set is still missing Projections of future land subsidence also requires projections of human-induced subsidence depending on socio-economic development Other climate change drivers Future projections of changes in storminess and related extreme sea levels are still highly uncertain (in sign and magnitude) The could be of the same order of natural variability (e.g. in the North Sea) and anthropogenic changes induced at the local level may be much larger

13. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Data availability (II) Elevation (DEM and DTM) SRTM – Shuttle Radar Topography Mission: cover 80% of earth’s land surface (60 °N – 60° S, excluding majority of Scandinavia), resolution of 3 arc-second (app. 90 horizontal resolution at the equator), vertical accuracy less than 16 m (or less in flat areas) GTOPO30 – global DEM of the USGS: horizontal resolution of 30 arc-second (app. 1 km at the equator), EEA corrected version clipped at 1 km resolution International Institute for Applied System Analysis integrated SRTM and GTOPO30 to cover all Europe GDEM – Global Digital Elevation Map: cover earths land surface between 83° N and 83 ° S, 30 m horizontal resolution, still “research grade” and need for validation, vertical accuracy of approximately 20 m High resolution dataset, i.e. LIDAR or land-based topographic data (mainly held by national agency) Bathymetry GEBCO – General Bathymetry Chart of the Oceans: 1 arc-minute and 30 arc-second global grid Coastline No global dataset are available to map the difference between high and low water marks SRTM – derived coastline, consistent with SRTM and therefore limited to 60° N Others: WVS – World Vector Shoreline, GSHHS – Global Self-consistent Hierarchical High-resolution Shoreline database

14. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Land use and land cover CORINE Land Cover: the only homogenous dataset at the European level (1990, 2000, 2006); 44 categories – it can be assimilated to a land use layer Global Land Cover 2009: 330 m resolution, 23 classes giving importance to vegetation cover MOD12C1 products by the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme: 500 m resolution, yearly delivered from 2001 to now Land use and land cover scenarios are important in coastal vulnerability assessment JRC study "Coastal Zones. Policy alternatives impacts on European Coastal Zones 2000-2050“ applied the EUClueScanner land-use model for the simulation of two policy alternatives relevant to ICZM Demographic and economic data EUROSTAT data: total population living in coastal regions, population by gender and age, population projections (NUTS3) labour forces, GDP and added values at yearly time steps (NUTS 0) National statistics and census can provide more detailed data: demographic data at the municipal and sub-municipal level, economic data at NUTS2 and NUTS3 levels Long term demographic projections are expected from the DEMIFER project JRC and EEA calculated population density disaggregated in connection with the CORINE Land Cover classes for the year 2000: EU-wide population density grid 100 m x 100 m Data availability (III)

15. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Ecosystem targets Natura 2000 dataset (vector maps) and the World Database on Protected Areas Adaptation measures Still very poorly addressed at the European level: local and regional initiatives, wide and heterogeneous typologies (e.g. coastal defence structures, beach nourishment, planning and zoning, naturalisation, other soft interventions, governance re-structuring, policy mainstreaming, etc.), difficult to be mapped EUROSION project The EUROSION database includes 14 European wide spatial layers: Terrestrial administrative boundaries, maritime boundaries, shoreline, bathymetry, elevation, geomorphology and geology, erosion trends and coastal defence works, hydrography, infrastructure, wave and wind climate, tidal regime, sea level rise, land cover and land cover changes since 1975, areas of high ecological values Data availability (IV

16. Copenhagen (DK) 8-9 June 2011 Open questions to the workshop Which approaches and methods have been applied in existing coastal vulnerability assessments in Europe? What is the role of vulnerability or risk maps in these assessments and in communicating their results? How have the results been used by decision-makers? Is an European visualisation tool a required tool to improve communication and support to decision making? Which regional approaches may be transferable to other regions? What are main strengths and limitations of different approaches for coastal vulnerability assessment to support adaptation at European, transnational, and national scales? How many different approaches are required to assess key climate change risks in different European regions and in different coastal types? Which method(s) appear most useful for coastal vulnerability assessment to climate change at the European and Regional Sea scale, considering the costs and availability of needed data? Recommendations for the appropriate and efficient use of existing methods Recommendations for further improvement of available data and methods Are there any other relevant assessment approaches to be included in the final working paper?