Coastal Risk Management in a Changing Climate

Coastal Risk Management in a Changing Climate

Editors

Barbara Zanuttigh

Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Chemicals, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy

Robert Nicholls

Professor, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

Jean Paul Vanderlinden

Professor, Cultures, Environments, Arctic, Representations, Climate Research Center, Universite´ de Versailles, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 11 boulevard d’Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, France

Hans F. Burcharth

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Sofiendalsvej 9-11, DK-9200 Aalborg SV, Denmark

Richard C. Thompson

Professor, Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre School of Marine, Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Acknowledgments

List of Contributors

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Background

1.2. THESEUS Project

1.3. This Book

Chapter 2. Developing a Holistic Approach to Assessing and Managing Coastal Flood Risk

2.1. Introduction

2.2. Flood Nomenclature: Vulnerability, Risk, and Resilience

2.3. Describing the Coastal Flood System: The Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence Model

2.4. Assessment of Existing Flood Management

2.5. Flood Damage

2.6. The Social Context of Flooding at the Coast

2.7. Coastal Habitats Within the Flood System

2.8. The Physical Context of Flooding at the Coast

2.9. Handling Uncertainty

2.10. Capturing Future Changes

2.11. Conclusions

Chapter 3. Innovative Engineering Solutions and Best Practices to Mitigate Coastal Risk

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Floating Breakwaters and Wave Energy Converters

3.3. Innovative Submerged Structures

3.4. Overtopping Resistance of Grass-covered Landward Slopes of Dikes

3.5. Upgrade of Conventional Rubble Mound Breakwaters and Revetments

3.6. Management of Sediment Resources

3.7. Conclusions

Chapter 4. Ecological Approaches to Coastal Risk Mitigation

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Management of Sandy Habitats: Sandy Beaches to Sand Dunes

4.3. Management of Saltmarsh Habitats

4.4. Management of Biogenic Reefs

4.5. Management of Seagrass Meadows

4.6. Ecological Design Considerations for Hard Structures

4.7. Interaction of Multiple Stressors in the Coastal Zone

4.8. Conclusions

Chapter 5. Nonstructural Approaches to Coastal Risk Mitigations

5.1. Introduction

5.2. Insurance

5.3. Spatial (Land Use) Planning

5.4. Business Continuity Planning

5.5. Postflood Recovery, Vulnerability, and Resilience

5.6. Risk Communications at the Crossroads of Vulnerability Reduction and Resilience Enhancement

5.7. Evacuation Plans

5.8. Conclusions

Chapter 6. Toward Sustainable Decision Making

6.1. Introduction

6.2. Efficiency, Equity, and Sustainability of Mitigation Options

6.3. Evaluation of Mitigation Options

6.4. Legislative Constraints

6.5. Decision Making

6.6. Decision Support Systems

6.7. Conclusions

Chapter 7. Case Studies Worldwide

7.0. Introduction

7.1. Extreme Estuarine Water Levels and Channel Morphology, Effect on Flood Extents and Habitat Resilience: The Scheldt Estuary, Belgium and the Netherlands

7.2. Mitigating Flood and Erosion Risk using Sediment Management for a Tourist City: Varna, Bulgaria

7.3. Coastal Wetlands in the Yangtze Estuary, China

7.4. Managing Risk in a Large Flood System, the Gironde Estuary, France

7.5. Flood Hazard Mitigation in a Heavily Modified Estuary, the Elbe Estuary, Germany

7.6. Risk Assessment and Mitigation in a Low-lying Coastal Area: Cesenatico, Northern Italy

7.7. Balancing Flood and Erosion Risk with Landscape Sustainability: Cancun, Mexico

7.8. Flood and Erosion Management on a Dynamic Spit: the Hel Peninsula, Poland

7.9. Flooding and Erosion Risk Analysis in Santander Bay, Spain

7.10. Teign Estuary, South Devon, UK: Stakeholder-Led Mitigation

Index

Copyright

Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK

225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher's permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods or professional practices, may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information or methods described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Coastal risk management in a changing climate / edited by Barbara Zanuttigh.

pages cm

ISBN 978-0-12-397310-8 (paperback)

1. Coastal zone management–Case studies. 2. Coast changes–Risk assessment–Case studies. 3. Climatic changes–Risk assessment–Case studies. 4. Coastal engineering–Case studies. I. Zanuttigh, Barbara, editor of compilation.

HT391.C49816 2014

333.91'7–dc23

2014035128

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-397310-8

For all information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications visit our Web site at http://store.elsevier.com/

Cover credit: Blankenberge, Belgium. By courtesy of the Flanders Marine Institute (www.vliz.be), Belgium.

Acknowledgments

The Editors wish to express a special thanks to Dr. Susan Hanson, University of Southampton, and Dr. Simon Hoggart, University of Plymouth, for their invaluable effort and kind assistance contributing to this book.

The whole Authors team—and especially the First Editor as Project Coordinator—would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Commission through the Grant 244104, THESEUS Innovative technologies for safer European coastal areas, www.theseusproject.eu, 2009–2013, funded within the FP7 theme 6 Environment and climate change.

Grateful thanks to Simon Claus and Daphnis De Pooter of the Flanders Marine Institute, for the effort spent on increasing risk awareness and disseminating the results of THESEUS and of this book.

List of Contributors

Chapter 1

Introduction

Barbara Zanuttigh¹, Robert Nicholls²,  and Susan Hanson²     ¹Department of Civil, Chemicals, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna (UniBo), Bologna, Italy     ²Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton (Soton), Southampton, BJ, UK

Abstract

Coastal areas are important settlement zones and play a vital role in the wealth of many nations. Nearly 25% of the world's population lives within 62  miles (100  km) of a shoreline. Roughly 600  million people live in coastal regions that are less than 10  m above sea level, and this figure is likely to increase more rapidly (up to 50% over the next 25  years) than global population projections, reflecting coastal urbanization. Many of the world's largest cities are located at the coast (e.g., Tokyo, Guangzhou, Bangkok, Istanbul, London, Lagos, New York, Buenos Aires), and of course include critical infrastructures such as energy facilities, ports, and airports. Coasts are also home to important and productive ecosystems that are increasingly valued by society.

Keywords

Climate change; Coastal areas; Erosion; Risk assessment

1.1. Background

Coastal areas are important settlement zones and play a vital role in the wealth of many nations. Nearly 25% of the world's population lives within 62  miles (100  km) of a shoreline. Roughly 600  million people live in coastal regions that are less than 10  m above sea level, and this figure is likely to increase more rapidly (up to 50% over the next 25  years) than global population projections, reflecting coastal urbanization (Lichter, Vafeidis, Nicholls, & Kaiser, 2011; McGranahan, Balk, & Anderson, 2007). Many of the world's largest cities are located at the coast (e.g., Tokyo, Guangzhou, Bangkok, Istanbul, London, Lagos, New York, Buenos Aires) (Hanson et al., 2011), and of course include critical infrastructures such as energy facilities, ports, and airports. Coasts are also home to important and productive ecosystems that are increasingly valued by society.

Large coastal stretches are exposed to erosion and flooding worldwide (Hinkel et al., 2013; Hinkel, van Vuuren, Nicholls, & Klein, 2013). Coastal flooding has caused more than 3  million deaths since 1700, with a strong concentration around the Bay of Bengal (see Doocy, Daniels, Murray, & Kirsch, 2013; Nicholls, 2006). During the worst sea surge recorded in modern European history, in the North Sea Surge in 1953, more than 2000 people lost their lives in England and the Netherlands, whereas 300 people died in Germany in 1962, which highlights the large areas in Europe that are also below normal high tide level. Most recent storms have been very economically disruptive because of flooding, for example, Hurricanes Katrina (2005) and Sandy (2012) in the United States and Typhoon Haiyan (2013) in the Philippines.

All the available assessments up to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment show that world's coasts are threatened by sea-level rise and climate change in a variety of ways (Nicholls et al., 2007). Deltas, low-lying coastal plains, islands and barrier islands, beaches, coastal wetlands, and estuaries appear most affected by the acceleration in sea-level rise, although the local response will depend on the total sediment budget, for example, the Nile (Marriner, Flaux, Morhange, & Stanley, 2013) and in Bangladesh (Sarwar & Woodroffe, 2013). For erosion, this includes the indirect influence of sea-level rise on the beach sediment budget via infilling of coastal embayments or basins. As the sea level rises, estuaries and lagoons attempt to maintain equilibrium by raising their bed elevation and hence potentially act as a major sink of sand that is often derived from adjacent coasts, aggravating their erosion. For flooding, local subsidence has often been important, and this is likely to remain an issue in the future in susceptible areas, particularly for the extensive deltaic areas in Southern and Eastern Asia (e.g., Ericson, Vorosmarty, Dingman, Ward, & Meybeck, 2006; Syvitski et al., 2009).

These changes also have consequences for coastal habitats and ecosystems that have generated a societal response in the form of global, regional, and local conservation efforts (e.g., Ramsar Convention, European Directives). Climate change combines with and amplifies nonclimate stressors on coastal ecosystems (e.g., Jackson, Nordstrom, Feagin, & Smith, 2013; Jennerjahn & Mitchell, 2013). Intense development and overpopulation, poverty, internal conflict, fragmentation and loss of habitat, overfishing, pollution, and spread of invasive species will impair the resilience of ecosystems (i.e., the ability of the ecosystem to maintain its integrity and to continue to provide critical goods and services to coastal communities, such as fisheries, storm protection, erosion control, water storage, groundwater recharge, pollution abatement, and retention and cycling of nutrients and sediments) (e.g., van Slobbe et al., 2013; UK NEA, 2011). Healthy coastal habitats such as mangroves, coral reefs, estuaries, seagrass beds, and dune communities function as self-repairing natural infrastructure for flood mitigation, in contrast to human-built infrastructure, thus minimizing maintenance costs. When these critical resources are compromised, coastal ecosystems can deteriorate—and weakened, unhealthy coastal ecosystems are less resilient to climate change and variability and coastal flood risk may rise.

The application of risk assessment and management is one of the most important environmental policy developments of the past few decades. Modern societies recognize that their activities both depend upon and have consequences for the environment, and risk assessment can be used as a method for determining how and where to intervene for maximum benefit. Effects of human activity have an impact on sociopolitical institutions and environmentally dependent systems, such as the economy, human health, and natural ecosystems at different spatial and temporal scales. To be effective, flood risk management strategies therefore need to be developed with a multidisciplinary, long-term (many decades) perspective to include factors such as climate change, especially sea-level rise, coastal development pressures, and habitat implications. This is challenging because this is often beyond typical financial, political, and management decision timescales. The most comprehensive responses are seen in wealthy countries that have experienced significant coastal flooding (e.g., Japan, UK, The Netherlands).

Although in the media and the public mind, coastal floods and erosion are often seen as unnatural and nonallowable, they are natural occurrences, and no amount of investment can reduce risks to zero; the residual risk will always remain and society needs to define the acceptable level of this residual.

Traditional technical flood and erosion defenses have shown their limits. First, traditional coastal defenses have had an impact on their environment: in recent years, greater attention had been paid to the design and selection of coastal defense structures and technologies based on an integrated analysis of their performance and on their environmental and socioeconomic implications. Then, of course, they are facing their sensitivity to climate change: because of the expected sea-level rise and possible increase of storminess, thousands of kilometers of coastal dikes will be exposed to waves with heights exceeding the design value and will need to be improved or a higher risk accepted. Finally, what society expects from defenses is changing (e.g., widespread moves from hard to soft defenses to hold the line and maintain valuable breaches), and these needs will continue to evolve (e.g., the potential for widespread application of multipurpose structures such as surf reefs or marine renewable energy devices).

A more systems-based view of the coast, which is implied earlier in the chapter, suggests the possibility of enhancing overall coastal resilience rather than relying on single management measures. The management of risk levels also requires understanding the flood system as it responds to a range of internal and external drivers as well as the implementation of different risk mitigation options. In this way, more appropriate and locally acceptable decisions can be made that address local problems, while recognizing wider or more distant implications (Dawson et al., 2009; Jongman, Ward, & Aerts, 2012; Kok & Grossmann, 2010). Recent studies (e.g., Resilient Coasts Initiative, 2009) recommend six principles to enhance coastal resilience: (1) require risk-based land use planning; (2) design adaptable infrastructure and building code standards to meet future risk; (3) strengthen ecosystems as part of a risk mitigation strategy; (4) develop flexible adaptation plans; (5) maintain a viable private property and casualty insurance market; and (6) integrate climate change impacts into due diligence for investment and lending. Although these ideas and concepts are well known, there is less practical experience of their application, especially applying a combination of different approaches together.

The effective management of coastal flooding therefore requires the active involvement and cooperation of multiple actors (national/regional governments, the private sector, research bodies, civil society, and community-based organizations and communities) playing differential but complementary well-defined roles across spatial and temporal scales. Learning from past and recent extreme events supports the development of a participatory framework in which all stakeholders have something to contribute to the process of risk governance and mutual communication. This, in turn, promotes societal acceptance of any proposed management approach.

1.2. THESEUS Project

Responding to coastal disasters and enhancing resilience to coastal erosion and flooding needs a holistic, participatory, and interdisciplinary approach in which science is embedded in the social, cultural, and economic context of coastal communities. It is in this spirit that the THESEUS project (www.theseusproject.eu, 2009–2013) aimed at delivering a safer (low-risk) coast for human use/development and healthy coastal habitats as sea levels rise and climate changes (and the economy continues to grow). The primary project objective was to develop an integrated methodology for planning sustainable defense strategies for the management of coastal erosion and flooding that addresses technical, social, economic, and environmental aspects.

The THESEUS consortium consisted of 31 partners; 25 from 12 EC Member States, four from International Cooperation Partners Countries (China, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine) and two from Third Countries (Taiwan and the United States). Among the Consortium were partners with expertise ranging from coastal and civil engineering; marine ecology; social sciences and economics; and meteorology and climate change to computer science and geographic information systems.

The most relevant issues addressed by THESEUS are synthesized as follows:

▪ A conceptual basis for flood assessment.

The conceptual framework was based on the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model (FLOODsite Consortium, 2009; Narayan et al., 2014; Thorne, Evans, & Penning, 2007) and was aimed at providing a clear definition of the flood system and a conceptual map showing the inherent, causal relationships and their interdependencies. Unlike many earlier flood assessments, THESEUS accounted for the consequences of flooding on both the human and natural systems and recognized that risk is a human or societal perception rather than an inherent characteristic of the natural system.

▪ Innovation and best practices in coastal engineering.

THESEUS studied the resilience of existing management and explored new innovative approaches. For example, the resistance of grass covered sea dikes as well as methods for upgrading conventional rubble mound coastal structures, the use of artificial reefs as a wave dampening structure, and best practice for beach nourishment. THESEUS also systematically analyzed the use of floating wave energy converters for coastal protection purpose.

▪ Preserving and enhancing coastal ecosystems.

The work in THESEUS shows how adopting a systems perspective allows the process understanding of habitats to be integrated with coastal engineering and social aspects of flooding to augment and increase the options available to flood risk managers. A better understanding of the habitat vulnerability to erosion and flooding process was also achieved and synthesized by means of threshold values and indicators.

▪ The governance dimension.

THESEUS analyzed risk perception in terms of paradigmatic tensions associated with conflicting pertinence, normative, and evidence claims. As such, THESEUS allowed for the clear identification of norms as the main source of varying perceptions regarding coastal risks. THESEUS also analyzed a range of socially based mitigation options such as a simplified model of insurance, spatial planning, business recovery, and emergency planning that both reduce the consequences and improve resilience to flood events.

▪ Decision making for a sustainable coast.

Within the large scope of THESEUS, one of the main objectives was to design a tool to help decision makers in defining optimal strategies to minimize risk in the short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios. The resulting software reproduces in a simplified way the most relevant physical processes (coastal erosion and flooding) induced by waves and sea levels, taking into account physical and nonphysical drivers, such as climate change, subsidence, population growth, and economic development.

▪ Science and policy.

THESEUS strengthened the science and policy dialogue through three key measures: (1) learning from experience in study sites; (2) timely involvement of different actors (stakeholders, coastal managers, and policy makers); and (3) strategic dissemination, including products targeted to the audience, such as policy briefs, webinars, multimedia material, informative booklets, and of course the decision support system tool.

1.3. This Book

The book is composed of two main parts, providing the reader with up-to-date information and results based on relevant outcomes of the THESEUS project.

The first part (Chapters 2–6) presents a methodology for analyzing the coastal flood system and scoping the best combination of mitigation options including engineering, ecologically based, social, and economic measures. The second part (Chapter 7) presents the application of the developed methodology for risk assessment and mitigation to selected case studies.

More in details the book outline includes:

▪ a discussion of the coastal flood system in Chapter 2;

▪ risk-based conceptual design of innovative coastal structures (such as barriers for wave energy conversion, artificial reefs, and bottom vegetation) and technologies (nourishment and dredging, sand banks, sediment reservoirs, beach dewatering, and by-pass systems) in Chapter 3;

▪ evaluation of the impact adaptation technology (controlled seawater inundation) and estimation of the role of innovative mitigation measures based on the environment such as restoration of existing habitat or habitat creation in Chapter 4;

▪ setup of technologies and mitigation measures based on society and economy such as: spatial planning, controlled urbanization, flood resistant adaptations to buildings; innovative methods of siting, designing and managing business operations; evacuation plans; increase of social resilience; and adaptive capacity in Chapter 5;

▪ a holistic methodology for risk assessment and mitigation with specific reference to the Source Pathway Receptor and Consequence Model in Chapter 6;

▪ application to real worldwide cases in Chapter 7.

References

Dawson R.J, Dickson M.E, Nicholls R.J, Hall J.W, Walkden M.J.A, Stansby P.K, et al. Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long term change. Climatic Change. 2009;95(1–2):249–288. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9532-8.

Doocy S, Daniels A, Murray S, Kirsch T.D. The human impact of floods: a historical review of events 1980–2009 and systematic literature review. PLoS Currents. 2013;5 doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.f4deb457904936b07c09daa98ee8171a.

Ericson J.P, Vorosmarty C.J, Dingman S.L, Ward L.G, Meybeck M. Effective sea-level rise and deltas: causes of change and human dimension implications. Global and Planetary Change. 2006;50(1–2):63–82. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.07.004.

FLOODsite Consortium. FLOODsite; integrated flood risk analysis and management methodologies. 2009 FLOODsite Consortium. http://www.floodsite.net/default.htm Accessed 15.11.13.

Hanson S, Nicholls R, Ranger N, Hallegatte S, Corfee-Morlot J, Herweijer C, et al. A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate extremes. Climatic Change. 2011;104(1):89–112. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9977-4.

Hinkel J, Nicholls R.J, Tol R.S.J, Wang Z.B, Hamilton J.M, Boot G, et al. A global analysis of erosion of sandy beaches and sea-level rise: an application of DIVA. Global and Planetary Change. 2013;111:150–158. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.09.002.

Hinkel J, van Vuuren D.P, Nicholls R.J, Klein R.J.T. The effects of adaptation and mitigation on coastal flood impacts during the 21st century. An application of the DIVA and IMAGE models. Climatic Change. 2013;117(4):783–794. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0564-8.

Jackson N.L, Nordstrom K.F, Feagin R.A, Smith W.K. Coastal geomorphology and restoration. Geomorphology. 2013;199:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.06.027.

Jennerjahn T.C, Mitchell S.B. Pressures, stresses, shocks and trends in estuarine ecosystems an introduction and synthesis. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science. 2013;130:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2013.07.008.

Jongman B, Ward P.J, Aerts J. Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: long term trends and changes. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 2012;22(4):823–835. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004.

Kok J.-L, Grossmann M. Large-scale assessment of flood risk and the effects of mitigation measures along the Elbe River. Natural Hazards. 2010;52(1):143–166. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9363-6.

Lichter M, Vafeidis A.T, Nicholls R.J, Kaiser G. Exploring data-related uncertainties in analyses of land area and population in the Low-Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ). Journal of Coastal Research. 2011;27(4):757–768. doi: 10.2112/jcoastres-d-10-00072.1.

Marriner N, Flaux C, Morhange C, Stanley J.D. Tracking Nile Delta vulnerability to Holocene change. Plos One. 2013;8(7) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069195.

McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B. The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization. 2007;19(1):17–37.

Narayan S, Nicholls R.J, Clarke D, Hanson S, Reeve D.E, Horillo-Caraballo J, et al. The SPR systems model as the conceptual foundation for rapid integrated risk appraisals: lessons from Europe. Coastal Engineering. 2014;87:15–31. doi: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.10.021.

Nicholls R.J. Storm surges in coastal areas. In: Arnold M, Chen R.S, Deichmann U, Dilley M, Lerner-Lam A.L, eds. Natural disaster hotspots: Case studies (disaster risk management 6). Washington DC, USA: World Bank Publications; 2006.

Nicholls R.J, Wong P.P, Burkett V.R, Codignotto J.O, Hay J.E, McLean R.F, et al. Coastal systems and lowlying areas. In: Parry M.L, Canziani O.F, Palutikof J.P, van der Linden P.J, Hanson C.E, eds. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

Resilient Coasts Initiative. Resilient coasts: a blueprint for action. 2009 The Heinz Center for Science, Economics and There Environment and CERES. http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/resilient-coasts-blueprint-for-action-2009/view Accessed 13.11.13.

Sarwar M.G.M, Woodroffe C.D. Rates of shoreline change along the coast of Bangladesh. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 2013;17(3):515–526. doi: 10.1007/s11852-013-0251-6.

van Slobbe E, de Vriend H.J, Aarninkhof S, Lulofs K, de Vries M, Dircke P. Building with nature: In search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Natural Hazards. 2013;65(1):947–966. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0342-y.

Syvitski J.P.M, Kettner A.J, Overeem I, Hutton E.W.H, Hannon M.T, Brakenridge G.R, et al. Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nature Geoscience. 2009;2(10):681–686. doi: 10.1038/ngeo629.

Thorne C, Evans E, Penning-Rowsell E.C, eds. Future flooding and coastal erosion risks. London, UK: Thomas Telford; 2007.

UK NEA. UK national ecosystem assessment: Understanding nature's value to society. Technical report. Cambridge, UK: United Nations Environment Programme and World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); 2011. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Default.aspx Accessed 13.11.13.

Chapter 2

Developing a Holistic Approach to Assessing and Managing Coastal Flood Risk

Robert Nicholls⁵, Barbara Zanuttigh¹, Jean Paul Vanderlinden², Ralf Weisse³, Rodolfo Silva⁴, Susan Hanson⁵, Siddarth Narayan⁵, Simon Hoggart⁶, Richard C. Thompson⁶, Wout de Vries⁷,  and Phoebe Koundouri⁸     ¹Department of Civil, Chemicals, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna (UniBo), Bologna, Italy     ²Cultures, Environments, Arctic, Representations, Climate Research Center, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), Guyancourt, France     ³Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Centre for Materials and Coastal Research (HZG), Geesthacht, Germany     ⁴Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Coyoacán, DF. México     ⁵Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton (Soton), Southampton, UK     ⁶Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, School of Marine Science and Engineering, University of Plymouth (UoP), Plymouth, UK     ⁷INFRAM International BV (INFRAM), Marknesse, The Netherlands     ⁸Department of International and European Economic Studies, Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), Athens, Greece

Abstract

It is increasingly recognized that a comprehensive understanding of the existing flood system is necessary to effectively manage coastal flood risk. This involves consideration of the social and ecological dimensions in addition to the hydrological aspects that have been the traditional focus of flood analysis. Social aspects are important, as they represent both the reason for flood management and the growth in exposure, as well as providing the context within which any decision will be made. Coastal species and habitats are inherently important for the flood management ecosystem services that they provide for flood management. The flood flow, depth, and extent determine the potential for flood damage. The conceptual model adopted here for coastal risk assessment is based on the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model, which is a simple linear conceptual model for representing flood systems and processes that lead to a particular flooding consequence. This approach is being used to evaluate how the Sources (waves, tides, storm surge, mean sea level, river discharge, run-off), through the Pathways (including coastal defenses), affect the Receptors (inland system), generating economic, social, and environmental Consequences. Collectively, this more holistic analysis of the flood system can identify likely trends in flood risk and the wide range of potential mitigation options embracing engineering, ecological, or socioeconomic measures, including hybrid combined approaches.

Keywords

Coastal flood system; Risk assessment; Risk management; Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model

2.1. Introduction

Coastal flood systems can be large and complex, and they change with time. These issues create several challenges with gaining a comprehensive understanding of these systems.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in New Orleans, USA was one of the costliest coastal flood disasters in history (Seed et al., 2008) and provided several lessons for flood risk management. Key was the lack of a systemic overview of the state of flood defenses prior to the event, mainly due to the size and complexity of both the New Orleans coastal defense system and the responsible organizations. Administrative delineations, especially where the flood system crosses political boundaries that do not recognize the full extent of the natural flood system, are significant constraints to a full understanding of the flood system. A similar lack of overview on emergency response measures and flood defenses led to aggravation of damage during the July 2007 floods in England (Pitt, 2008) and storm Xynthia in France in 2010 (Kolen et al., 2010; Lumbroso & Vinet, 2011). In addition, development contrary to spatial planning laws and a lack of knowledge of potential flood routes within the system caused authorities and inhabitants to be taken by surprise (Kolen et al., 2010).

Coastal flood systems often comprise many land-use types and an equal variety of stakeholders and experts. This is further complicated by interdependencies between the flood system elements. Understanding these interdependencies across the flood system and quantifying their effects on flooding due to changes in the states of particular elements is a significant challenge. A simplified model of the topological relationships allows users to understand effects on the system as particular elements change, or as new or improved information about these elements is obtained.

Changes over time of coastal flood systems include the following aspects that are nonlinearly correlated.

▪ Climate change

    Global climate change is a key influence on coastal flooding. Global sea levels have risen over the last 100  years and this is expected to continue and accelerate in the next century due to global warming and other possible changes in climate (Church et al., 2013, Church, Woodworth, Aarup, & Wilson, 2010; Nicholls et al., 2014). Any long-term rise in mean sea level will have an effect on extreme levels as it moves the entire distribution of sea levels toward higher values; i.e., it changes the baseline to which the other factors are added (Haigh, Nicholls, & Wells, 2009). Importantly, there is large uncertainty about the magnitude of future change, including other climate change (offshore waves, surges, etc.), although we are confident that sea levels will rise.

▪ Socioeconomic change

    Changes in coastal population and the coastal economy and resulting change in the use of the coastal zone for infrastructure are key issues for managing flood events. Globally, there has been massive expansion in people and assets at risk in the coastal zone, raising the consequences of flooding (McGranahan, Balk, & Anderson, 2007). This is expected to continue through the twenty-first century (Hanson et al., 2011; Nicholls et al., 2012a), and needs to be considered in risk management.

▪ Morphological and habitat change

    The coastal system is dynamic and can respond in a number of ways to any external perturbation. For instance, natural coastal habitats such as mangroves and salt-marshes provide protection during flood events, but these are themselves often affected by the same events. Habitat losses affect flooding during subsequent events. Similarly, erosion of beaches is widespread and influences flood risk (Dawson et al., 2009). The challenge here is to capture the flood system in its entirety, including key information on all potential flood routes, including those that may operate under the most extreme conditions over the time-frame of interest.

Historically, responses to reduce negative flood impacts have concentrated on the use of physical defenses to reduce the probability of flooding. More recently, a more holistic emphasis that includes the natural environment and nonstructural measures is considered a more prudent approach to risk management (Renn, 2008; Thorne, Evans, & Penning, 2007). Such an approach embraces the notion of flood resilience and vulnerability reduction as well as prevention (Figure 2.1). Consideration of the flood system beyond traditional flood modeling needs to include the natural environment, the concerns of stakeholders and public groups, information on local risk perception, and existing flood management governance (Figure 2.1, Aven & Renn, 2010, Chapter 5).

In order to overcome the challenges described, such an approach should also be able to integrate information on the different types of elements across the system and provide an overview of the relevant topological relationships and interdependencies. Ultimately this should inform more detailed models to provide a more complete picture of all relevant inputs, as well as the system itself. Establishing a baseline conceptual understanding of the existing flood system from these perspectives provides a logical basis for decision-making and encourages:

▪ Consideration of the social and political context in which flood events occur;

▪ The use of the information to develop policies and development controls around current and future development;

▪ The inclusion of the role of the natural environment both in flood management as well as its intrinsic value, as required in the Habitats Directive (European Parliament and Council of the European Commission, 2007) and other habitat designations;

Figure 2.1   The coastal flood system: important aspects for flood assessment and mitigation selection.

▪ Investigation of the full range of flood-mitigation options across the spectrum of engineering, ecological, and social measures (Chapter 6).

The present chapter looks at coastal floodplains in a systemic sense, including their social and ecological dimensions, and outlines the range of potential flood mitigation measures. This allows Chapters 3–5 to consider in detail a range of innovative engineering, ecological, and socioeconomic mitigation measures, respectively.

2.2. Flood Nomenclature: Vulnerability, Risk, and Resilience

Given the complexity of flooding and flood issues that has already been outlined, a range of concepts and associated terminology is used. In lay discussion these terms are often used interchangeably, providing potential for confusion and miscommunication. Here we lay out a common set of definitions for key terms to facilitate their use and discussion through the book. This draws on earlier work such as the FLOODSite project (http://www.floodsite.net/) and the Netherlands Knowledge for Climate Research Program (http://knowledgeforclimate.climateresearchnetherlands.nl/).

Floods are defined by physical characteristics such as flood depth, extent, and duration, which are fairly transparent. However, there are many systemic concepts such as flood risk, flood vulnerability, and flood resilience which are potentially ambiguous and require definition. All coastal floods begin with a hazardous event, often a storm that produces surges and waves (sources of flooding). However, a source of flooding does not automatically lead to a flood event, as this depends on the pathways and receptors. If the land is high enough, or if it is well protected by dikes and dunes, then the storm does not lead to a flood. However, if the seawater overtops the protection, or breaches the dikes or dunes, than the low-lying land behind it will be subject to flooding with consequences for the associated receptors.

The notion of vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of the change agent, in this case floods. Flood vulnerability is a function of the character and magnitude of flooding and variation to which a system is exposed—the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of that system. A range of flood vulnerability indices have been developed to operationalize this concept (e.g., Balica, Douben, & Wright, 2009). Vulnerability assessment has been conducted in a range of contexts with a view to understand and reduce this vulnerability, including to floods.

The notion of flood risk is a combination of probability and consequences, often expressed as an annual mean damage (or consequence) (see Penning-Rowsell et al., 2013). Hence, risk can be expressed as a number, and the units of consequences may be related to flood victims and flood damage to homes, businesses, and nature. To explore the meaning of risk, the four quadrants of probability and consequences can be explored, considering high and low situations. If the probability of a major flood is high and the consequences are high, then this is a high-risk situation. On the other hand, if the probability of a flood is small and the consequences are small, then this is a low-risk situation. The situation where floods have a high probability and low consequences is also a low-risk situation, and with the regular experience of flooding, people and the environment often adjust to such floods, further reducing the consequences. Lastly, there is the situation with low probability of flooding, but with high (very serious) consequences, such as London, the Netherlands, Shanghai, and Tokyo. The challenge in these cases is to reduce the probability of flooding to acceptable levels, and reduce the consequences wherever possible. However, in these situations a failure can be catastrophic, as shown in New Orleans in 2005 (Kates, Colten, Laska, & Leatherman, 2006). Hence while you can calculate risk, the level of risk that we are willing to accept remains a political question.

The notion of flood resilience is related to vulnerability and describes the systemic ability to experience flooding with minimum damage and rapid recovery. It can be seen as a design approach that can reduce the damage that occurs due to flooding. For example, it could involve constructing a building in such a way that although floodwater may enter the building, its impact is minimized and recovery is rapid. Resilience operates at multiple scales from individual buildings to communities, towns, and cities. In this more aggregate sense, resilience can be provided by multiple measures that reduce damage and promote recovery, and hybrid approaches can be taken and need to be considered. This might include combinations of warnings, evacuation and emergency plans, land use planning, traditional hard and soft defenses, building construction approaches, provision of insurance, etc.

Reducing vulnerability and flood risk is a key goal of flood risk management, and this can be accomplished in many ways, as discussed later in this chapter and the book as a whole. Enhancing flood resilience is one method for achieving this goal.

2.3. Describing the Coastal Flood System: The Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence Model

Risk assessments are used to evaluate and support the selection of appropriate mitigation options for diverse environmental problems including the regulation of hazardous waste sites, industrial chemicals, and pesticides; or the management of ecosystems affected by multiple physical, chemical, or biological stressors (e.g., Arnoldi, 2009). Along Europe's coastlines, the EU Floods Directives requires member states to draw up regularly updated Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments considering potential impacts on human health and life, the environment, cultural heritage, and economic activity. These risk assessments can be used to identify areas at high risk of flooding. Following this, models can be used to produce flood and flood-risk maps for specified events. The development of flood-risk assessments has become an increasingly significant issue over recent years following storm events such as winter storm Xynthia in 2010 (flood damage in excess of €1.2  billion and at least 47 lives lost; Lumbroso & Vinet, 2011), and a recognition that impacts, while initially of local importance, can escalate to have consequences for the wider economy (e.g., Hallegatte, Green, Nicholls, & Corfee-Morlot, 2013). Important examples include the effect of Hurricane Katrina (2005) on global oil prices, and the Bangkok 2011 floods on the global availability of hard drives. As flood risk cannot be eliminated, but only reduced, the management of these risks requires understanding the flood system as it responds to a range of planned and unplanned interventions, (e.g., floodplain development, better defenses) as well as external changes (e.g., climate change). In this way, locally relevant decisions can be made while recognizing other wider or more distant implications.

The management of flood risk also requires fully engaging local communities within the risk-assessment process and making roles and responsibilities explicit, bringing together all the stakeholders in the coastal zone. In this process, it is essential to promote relevant, evidence- and knowledge-based contributions from a range of stakeholders, and to establish a shared understanding of the flood system (Charles, 2012).

This shared vision of the flood system should:

▪ Address the specific aims of flood management;

▪ Be accepted by all the disciplines contributing to the flood assessment to ensure integration and transferability of inputs/outputs;

▪ Illustrate where/how management options are influential in the system;

▪ Be understandable by stakeholders to enable clear communication of management options;

▪ Work across different temporal and spatial scales and levels of detail.

This shared view should enable the integration of methods and approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, to promote the understanding of flood events, their impacts, and the opportunities for mitigation measures. Establishing such a shared view before continuing with more detailed analysis is worthwhile, because the debate it engenders helps to develop a balanced view across the different perspectives, which often facilitates successful decisions made later. It also helps to create a common vocabulary, which is a fundamental necessity in integrated flood-risk assessments where the use and interpretation of words varies across scientific disciplines. This process creates a comprehensive picture of the areas of the flood system that are potentially affected by an event, providing useful information for higher levels of analysis. This requires a clear methodological approach, conceptual model, and analytical framework (Robinson, 2008).

Coastal flood risk studies—studies that focus on the evaluation of coastal flood impacts to human assets—conceptualize the coastal floodplain in terms of two components: (1) flood defenses that prevent or reduce the ingress of floodwater and (2) the floodplain behind the defenses comprising all the features considered to be at risk from flooding (Bakewell & Luff, 2008; Burzel et al., 2010; FLOODsite Consortium, 2009; NCDEM 2009). The quantitative evaluation of risk in these studies is usually performed using numerical hydraulic models. The modeling procedure parallels the conceptual description of the floodplains, starting from hydraulic boundary conditions and incorporating the influence of coastal flood defenses in order to evaluate the flood probabilities and damages to specific locations within the floodplain. Related floodplain systems such as habitats or physical coastal systems are often represented as external forces and pressures with little or no consideration of spatial and temporal feedbacks (Verwaest et al., 2008). Hence these treatments are often incomplete.

An alternative, more comprehensive way of visualizing the process of flood risk estimation and all its components is the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence (SPRC) conceptual model (Gouldby & Samuels, 2005). The model was first used in the environmental sciences to describe the propagation of a pollutant from a source, through a conducting pathway, to a potential receptor (Holdgate, 1979). It was first adopted in coastal flooding in the UK by the Foresight: Future Flooding report (Evans et al., 2004). It has subsequently been used in several coastal flood risk studies (Burzel et al., 2010; FLOODsite Consortium, 2009; North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, 2009; THESEUS OD1.15, 2012), and is increasingly underpinning wider flood-risk management. Based on conventional approaches to flood-risk estimation, the SPRC model visualizes flood-risk estimation as a linear process involving a Source of flooding, flood Pathways, and affected Receptors associated with different Consequences (Figure 2.2, Table 2.1).

The SPRC model recognizes the principle that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other (and with other systems), rather than in isolation. Consequently, it considers flood