You are on page 1of 64

Assessing

Coastal Vulnerability
DEVELOPING A GLOBAL INDEX
FOR MEASURING RISK

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Contents
List of Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................................................... i
List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................. v
Major Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ vii
1.

Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.

Study Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 3

3.

Current Global Coastal Monitoring Activities ................................................................................................ 4

4.

Data and Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 9


4.1
Data ................................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2
Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 10

5.

The Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework and the Global Coastal Zone ....... 14
5.1
Driving forces affecting coastal and marine ecosystems .............................................................. 14
5.2
Pressures affecting coastal and marine ecosystems ...................................................................... 19
5.3
State indicators of coastal and marine ecosystems ...................................................................... 20
5.4
Impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems ................................................................................. 31
5.5
Response indicators of coastal and marine ecosystems ............................................................... 33

6.

Coastal Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................. 35


6.1
Current work on a Coastal Vulnerability Index ................................................................................. 35
6.2
Vulnerability indicators .................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.1 Exposure indicators ............................................................................................................. 38
6.2.2 Coping capacity indicator .................................................................................................. 38
6.3
The most vulnerable coastal countries ........................................................................................... 39

7.

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 44

8.

References ................................................................................................................................................ 46

9.

Appendix 1a: Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Developed Countries .............................. 50

10.

Appendix 1b: Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Developing Countries ............................. 51

11.

Appendix 1c: Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Small Island Developing States ............... 53

12.

Special Supplement: The Asian Tsunami Disaster, 26th December 2004 ................................................... 54

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

List of Figures and Tables


Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18

Night-time satellite image ................................................................................................................ 1


Framework of the Coastal Ocean Observation Panel (COOP) ......................................................... 5
IGBP core projects ............................................................................................................................ 5
DPSIR model for Assessing Coastal Vulnerability ............................................................................. 11
Data analysis procedure ................................................................................................................ 12
Population density trends in the coastal zone, by continent (people/km2) ..................................... 16
Ratio of people living in coastal areas compared to inland .......................................................... 18
Population pressure in global coastal zones ................................................................................... 19
Land cover distribution in global coastal zones .............................................................................. 21
Percentage distribution of land cover in coastal zones, by continent ............................................ 22
Percentage distribution of area of biodiversity hotspots in coastal zones, by continent ................. 24
Bleached coral image ................................................................................................................... 26
Global annual mean surface temperature anomalies (C) ........................................................... 27
Greenhouse effect ......................................................................................................................... 27
Global average sea-level rise, 1900-2100 ..................................................................................... 31
Vanishing islands ............................................................................................................................ 32
Percentage of protected areas in coastal zones, by continent ..................................................... 33
Maldives space shuttle image ....................................................................................................... 43

Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12a
Table 12b
Table 12c
Table 13

Population estimates in coastal zones by various sources .............................................................. 15


Population pressure and distribution in top 10 countries ................................................................. 16
Comparison of population density in coastal zones and total land area ...................................... 20
The 10 most populous cities in the coastal zones of the world ....................................................... 20
Coastal zone land cover distribution in top 10 countries ................................................................ 23
Percentage of each hotspot and its protection status within the coastal zones ............................. 25
Percentage distribution of areas of transboundary hotspots in global coastal zones ..................... 26
Reported windstorm and tidal wave incident distribution in top 10 countries (1900-1999) ............. 28
Reported windstorm and wave/surge incident casualties in top 10 countries (1900-1999) ............ 29
Surface topography and the proportion of coastline of selected coastal communities ............... 30
Current work on the Coastal Vulnerability Index .............................................................................. 36
Vulnerability in global coastal zones Developed countries .......................................................... 40
Vulnerability in global coastal zones Developing countries ......................................................... 41
Vulnerability in global coastal zones Small Island Developing States ........................................... 43
A comparison between the Coastal Vulnerability Index produced by this study and the
FAO index on vulnerability to sea-level rise ..................................................................................... 45

3i

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

List of Acronyms
AVHRR

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

BPOA

Barbados Programme of Action

CI

Conservation International

CNIE

Committee for the National Institute for the Environment

C-GOOS

Coastal Global Ocean Observing System

COOP

Coastal Ocean Observation Panel

COP

Coastal Ocean Programme

CPACC

Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change

CVI

Coastal Vulnerability Index

CZM

Coastal Zone Management

DEM

Digital Elevation Model

DINAS_COAST

Dynamic and Interactive Assessment of National, Regional and Global Vulnerability of Coastal
Zones to Climate Change and Sea-level Rise

DIVA

Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment

DPSIR

Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response

EEA

European Environmental Agency

ENSO

El Nio Southern Oscillation

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EROS

Earth Resource Observation Systems

EVI

Economic Vulnerability Index

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GEF

Global Environment Facility

GIEWS

Global Information and Early Warning System

GIS

Geographical Information Systems

GISS

Goddard Institute for Space Studies

GIWA

Global International Water Assessment

GLOBEC

Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics

GOOS

Global Ocean Observing System

GPA

Global Programme of Action

GRID

Global Resource Information Database

GVA

Global Vulnerability Assessment

HDI

Human Development Index

HOTO

Health of the Ocean

ICSU

International Council for Science

ICZM

Integrated Coastal Zone Management

IFRC

International Federation of Red Cross and Crescent Societies

IGBP

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

IOC

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN

World Conservation Union

JGOFS

Joint Global Ocean Flux Study

ii4

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

LMR

Living Marine Resources

LOICZ

Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone

MA

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MRC

Munich Reinsurance Company

NAS

National Academy of Sciences

NDVI

Normalised Difference Vegetation Index

NIMA

U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OFDA/CRED

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance/Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters

OECD

Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development

PAGE

Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems

PSR

Pressure-State-Response

RAP

Retreat, Accommodate, Protect

RSP

Regional Seas Programme

SIDS

Small Island Developing States

SLR

Sea-Level Rise

SOFIA

State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture

SOPAC

South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

SST

Sea Surface Temperature

SURVAS

Synthesis and Upscaling of Sea-level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Studies

UNAC

United Nations Association in Canada

UNCSD

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

USGS

United States Geological Survey

VMAPO

Vector Map Level 0

WCMC

World Conservation and Monitoring Centre

WMO

World Meteorological Organisation

WRI

World Resources Institute

5
iii

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Acknowledgements
Our special thanks to the following individuals and organisations who assisted us in the preparation of this report
by providing data, comments and reviews:
Dr. Eugene Fosnight, Mark Ernste, Jeffery Danielson, Jane Smith and Nazmul Hossain (Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC); Dr. R. Goonetilake (Texas A&M International University); Assistant Prof. Bill Boyd
(Southern Cross University); Isabel Martinez, Martin Adriaanse, Annie Muchai, Elizabeth Khaka and Salif Diop and
Patrick Mmayi (UNEP); Robbert Misdorp (CZM-Centre/The Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and
Water Management); Yves Henocque (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea); Dr. Eric Wolanski
(Australian Institute of Marine Science); Gilian Cambers (University of Puerto Rico); Russel Arthurton and Hartwig
Kremer (Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone) and Craig Pratt (South Pacific Applied Geoscience
Commission) for their valuable comments and data; Rebecca Johnson for her skillful editing; Kim Giese (USGS)
for her excellent job in producing maps, graphics and the report, Beth Ingraham for Proof reading and Audrey
Ringler for the design and layout of the report.
The support provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) is gratefully acknowledged.

iv
6

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Foreword

Bernard Wahihia / UNEP

History shows a long and intrinsic relationship between coastal areas and
human habitation. Almost since the dawn of mankind, habitable coastal zones
have been key areas of population concentration and human interaction.
Today, they are among the most densely populated regions in the world.
Climate change and anthropogenic factors have been the primary causes for
the increasing degradation of coastal ecosystems. In order to address this
degradation, it is important to understand the status and distribution of coastal
populations, land cover, fragile ecosystems and the causes of their vulnerability.

A reliable assessment of the current status of the global coastal environment is


long overdue. The major constraint has been a widespread lack of accurate
and timely data at the global level. However, recent advances in spatial datagathering and processing techniques, including satellite remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems,
have started to assist the scientific community in overcoming these constraints.
This UNEP study attempts to achieve four primary objectives: to provide an overview of current global coastal
monitoring activities; to apply a Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to assess the
dynamic relationship between socio-economic and environmental indicators in coastal zones; to assess the
impacts of human activities and environmental threats on coastal and marine environments, in terms of
population pressure, land cover, geographic exposure, the probability of natural hazards, and the coping
capacities of coastal communities; and to develop a preliminary Coastal Vulnerability Index.
The analysis shows that about 41% of the global population lives in coastal areas that constitute roughly 7% of
the Earths total habitable land area. Coastal population density and the ratio of people living in coastal areas
compared to those living inland reveals that over 85% of developed, developing and small island developing
states have high population concentrations in coastal areas. Nine of the worlds ten most densely populated
cities are also found in coastal areas. Six of those cities are located in developing countries, of which five are in
Asia. The analysis also shows that coastal zones occupy about 19% of the global landmass. This area is also
home to forests, wetlands and biodiversity hotspots covering about 42% of the coastal zone.
People who live in coastal areas are relatively more exposed to windstorms, waves, tidal surges and rising sealevels than those who live inland. A Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) produced for each country shows its relative
vulnerability based upon its exposure to natural hazards and its individual coping capacity. However, at this
stage, the CVI provides only a rough indication of these parameters, and future analyses will become more
reliable as more data is made available.
On December 26th 2004, an undersea earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale occurred off the northwest
coast of Sumatra in Indonesia. The earthquake precipitated one of the worst disasters of modern times, as giant
tsunamis crashed onto the coastlines of the Indian Ocean Rim Countries, causing massive losses of human life
and infrastructure, and wreaking devastation on marine and terrestrial ecosystems. It is estimated that nearly
19 million people live within two kilometres of the affected coastal areas. This event testified to the growing
vulnerability of coastal communities, as coastal populations continue to grow often with few defences
against the forces of nature.

7
v

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

I trust that the results of this assessment will serve to increase public awareness about the vulnerability of coastal
zones, based upon the most reliable scientific information available, as well as catalysing policy options to
mitigate the future vulnerability of inhabited coastal zones. It is our intention that this document will provide a
vital first step for identifying adaptive response options at national levels within an Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (ICZM) framework.

Klaus Toepfer
United Nations Under-Secretary General
and Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme

8
vi

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Major Findings

Approximately 41% of the global population is concentrated in the coastal zone, which is defined as the
area within 100km of the coastline.

The average population density in the coastal zone has increased from 77 people per km2 in 1990 to
87 people per km2 in 2000. Current projections put this figure at 99, 115 and 134 people per km2 in 2010,
2025 and 2050 respectively.

Nine of the worlds 10 most densely populated cities are located in the global coastal zone. Five of these
cities (Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Calcutta and Bombay) are in Asia, while two (Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires)
are in South America. Seven of the 10 most densely populated coastal cities are in developing countries.

The global coastal zone covers 19.2% of the Earths total land mass, of which only 7.6% is habitable (the
remainder is either barren, snow/or ice-covered, or closed forest).

An estimated 42% of coastal lands are covered with forests. According to the study, more than 50% of the
coastal areas of Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil comprise forest cover. Many other countries, including China
and India, have much lower proportions of coastal forest, as much of their coastal areas have been
cleared for agricultural activities or settlement (55% of Chinas coastline and 47.5% of Indias).

Designated protected areas occupy only 10.5% of the global coastal zone. Of these, an estimated 29%
is forest, 10% barren, snow- or ice-covered land, 8.6% grassland, 2.1% cultivated land, and 10% water.

Conservation International has identified 25 biodiversity hotspots around the world, 23 of which are at
least partially within the coastal zone. On average, only 8.5% of the coastal hotspots fall within designated
protected areas. The geographical extent of these hotspots highlights the need for regional approaches
to coastal ecosystem management. Of the 23 hotspots that extend into the coastal zone, 14 fall within
the borders of some 58 countries. These transboundary hotspots are largely concentrated in Asia, the
Caribbean, Africa and South America.

The five most vulnerable coastlines in small island developing states are those in the Maldives, the
Seychelles, Barbados, Bahamas and Fiji. The five most vulnerable developing country coastlines are in
Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines and Mauritania. In developed countries, the most vulnerable
coastlines are in Denmark, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium.

9
vii

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

viii
10

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

1.
Background
Coastal environments are of crucial importance to all living organisms because they contain some of the
worlds most productive ecosystems. They provide valuable natural resources and protect people and land
from the often devastating effects of oceanic weather. They also contribute significantly to many countries
economies through the provision of employment, fisheries and other resources, and waterways for navigation
and the transportation of goods. Coastal environments comprise marine, freshwater and terrestrial habitats
that support a rich variety of indigenous fauna, as well as vegetation with a high biological diversity.
Mans relationship with coastal areas dates back over countless millennia. Coastal zones have long been key
areas for population concentration, social interaction and oceanic travel. Today, they represent some of the
most densely populated regions in the world (Sachs et. al, 2001).

Source: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

Figure 1: The Earth at Night


This night-time satellite image shows the imprint of human settlement on the world. The bright spots are the lights
emitted from towns, cities, and other areas of human activity. Africa shows very little light due to its widespread lack of
electricity.

Demand for coastal and marine resources is increasing rapidly as coastal areas become more developed
(NOAA Coastal Ocean Programme, 2000). However, the scientific evidence is mounting that high population
densities and the expansion of urban areas into wildlife habitats and wetland areas are rapidly degrading the
coastal environment, polluting pristine habitats and accelerating land-use conflicts (Brodie, 1995; Pilz and Traub,
1997). Furthermore, changes in atmospheric conditions in recent years have increased the occurrence of
floods, hurricanes and storm surges, and caused a notable rise in the warming of global land and water areas
(Viles and Spencer, 1995; Krishnamoorthy, 1997).
The effects of changes in coastal environments have not been limited to the coastal zone. The impacts of
vegetation clearance, volcanic activity, rising sea surface temperatures, and manmade pollution all have
regional and global implications. In recent years, such events have come to interest decision-makers and
conservationists as well as the general public. As the impact of natural processes such as storms, waves,
tidal surges and floods has become more visible, the processes have received a corresponding increase in
attention. In particular, there are growing indications that global warming and its consequences rising sea
levels and more frequent storms pose a very real and imminent threat to our coastlines (IPCC, 2001).
The findings of recent research show that human actions have profound impacts upon coastal zones
(NOAA, 2000; WRI, 2001; Sachs et. al, 2001; Shi and Singh, 2003). Studies indicate that climate change and

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

11
1

anthropogenic factors have been the major causes of coastal system degradation. In order to address these
problems, it is important to understand the status and spatial distribution of coastal populations, land cover and
use, the impacts of cities, and the vulnerability of coastal populations to environmental threats.
The dynamic relationship between these indicators can best be explained using the Driving Force-Pressure-StateImpact-Response (DPSIR) framework. Socio-economic and environmental factors are the main driving forces
that put pressure on coastal areas. Activities affecting the environment such as agricultural expansion into
wetlands, the over-exploitation of resources, water quality degradation, and increasing populations are pressure
indicators. State indicators show the observable changes resulting from these pressures, including land cover
changes, city expansion, coastal overcrowding, rising temperatures and sea levels. The impacts of these
indicators are clearly visible today in many coastal regions. These include forest excisions, soil erosion, coral
bleaching, groundwater pollution, and reduced freshwater quality. The societal responses to address these
problems should include strategies to mitigate these impacts: research into sources of coastal vulnerability, the
declaration of protected areas, incentives to reduce greenhouse gases, and the means to assess the current
situation and the impact of corrective measures.
To date, there have been no coordinated assessment efforts to understand human vulnerability in the coastal
zone at the global level. The main constraints have been the limited availability of accurate and timely data
on coastal environments, and the lack of modelling tools for analysing environmental changes and their impact
on people and coastal ecosystems. Modelling human vulnerability to environmental change is clearly vital in
order to understand regional and global ecosystem responses to climate change. Fortunately, two recent
developments in spatial information technologies offer the potential to make such a global assessment feasible.
The first is access to extensive spatial data-sets for environmental assessment derived from sources such as
satellite remote sensing, historical aerial photography, and published socio-economic data. The second involves
advances in spatial data processing technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and image
processing with affordable high-powered computers. These developments make it possible to model such
changes at varying levels of temporal and spatial detail.
Utilising new spatial information techniques and currently available global data-sets, this study sets out to
accomplish two primary goals: to assess the current status of global coastal populations and selected
environmental issues; and to evaluate human vulnerability to environmental threats in the global coastal zone.
The key questions that the study attempts to answer are:

What are the main driving forces that affect coastal environments?

What are the main pressures on global coastal zones?

What is the current status of these primary coastal issues?

Which coastal countries are the most vulnerable, and why?

2
12

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

2.
Study Objectives
The main objectives of this study are:

To provide an overview of some of the current global coastal monitoring activities.

To apply the DPSIR framework in order to assess the dynamic relationship between the different
(socio-economic and environmental) indicators.

To assess the impacts of human activities and environmental threats on coastal and marine
environments in terms of population pressure, land cover, geographic exposure, the probability of
natural hazards, and the coping capacities of communities.

To work towards the development of a preliminary Coastal Vulnerability Index as a proof of the
concept.

To increase public awareness of coastal zone vulnerability issues, based upon the latest accurate
scientific information.
This project contributes to the broader knowledge base of coastal zones in several ways:

The study examines the key factors of the DPSIR model and linkages affecting coastal environments.

It uses several global data-sets to derive information to assess the current status of people and their
living environments in the coastal zone, using GIS and remote sensing techniques.

The study demonstrates the use of GIS and remote sensing capabilities in deriving land cover
information at the global level, and producing coastal zone (100km) data-sets from global data-sets.

The project has drawn up a preliminary Coastal Vulnerability Index for 117 selected countries, as a first
step towards assessing the relative vulnerability of global coastal communities to environmental
threats.
The study research focuses on the vulnerability of people living in coastal areas to population pressures, land
cover changes, and natural hazards. Rising sea levels at local and regional levels may have significant impacts
on coastal lowland regions around the world, especially in developing countries and small island developing
states. However, the effects of relative sea-level rises could not be directly included in the vulnerability index due
to the coarse resolution of elevation and sea-level rise data used in this study. Instead, geographic exposure to
sea-level rises and to storms, waves and tidal surges was evaluated using global coastline data and surface
topography.
With the long-overdue nature of a global-level assessment of coastal vulnerability, this research attempts to
develop a preliminary index for assessing the relative vulnerability of coastal communities to environmental
threats. Although the index produced here does not accommodate the full range of threats faced by coastal
zones, we believe it will prove a useful step in raising awareness of coastal vulnerability and providing a basis for
more in-depth examination by concerned coastal nations. As well as national policymakers, it is hoped that the
study will provide useful guidance to international agencies and cross-border bodies working in the area of
coastal management and conservation. The research has been designed to help such bodies develop global
perspectives on coastal vulnerability, as well as improving understanding of the spatial distribution of risk at
national and local levels. The report should be used as a stimulus for identifying adaptive response options
at the national level, within an Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) framework.

13
3

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

3.
Current Global Coastal Monitoring Activities
In response to mounting evidence of the deterioration of the coastal zone together with growing appreciation
of its critical importance to human existence there have been several global actions initiated by international
bodies. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment underlined the importance of the seas
and marine life to the future of humanity. The first attempt to address coastal and marine issues in a coordinated
manner began with UNEPs Regional Seas Programme (RSP) in 1974. The main aim was to link coastal nations
together in a common commitment to mitigate and prevent further degradation of the worlds coastal areas,
in-shore and open waters ( http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/index.html). There are currently 17 regional seas
covered by action plans or their equivalents, 13 of which are supported by Regional Seas Conventions or other
protocols. Altogether, more than 140 countries participate in at least one RSP. UNEP provides a global framework
for cooperation between individual RSPs, and in some cases a programme secretariat. The RSP is currently
embarking on new strategic directions, as requested by UNEPs 22nd Governing Council in February 2003.
The 5th Global Meeting of the Regional Seas in November 2003 agreed upon a set of strategic guidelines to
increase the effectiveness and visibility of the RSP by developing greater institutional partnerships, promoting
further synergies in regional and global policymaking spheres, and strengthening cooperative efforts to
monitor and assess the marine and coastal environments (www.unep.org/water/regseas/regseas.htm).
UNEPs RSP also provides a solid platform for the regional implementation of global conventions and
programmes to safeguard the coastal environment, such as the Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the
protection of the marine environment from land-based activities. The GPA was adopted by 108 governments
and the European Community in 1995, and the following year the UN General Assembly designated UNEP as
the lead agency in its implementation.
The GPA commits signatory countries to prevent the degradation of the marine environment from land-based
activities by facilitating the realisation of the duty of States to preserve and protect the marine environment, and
is designed to assist States in taking actions individually or jointly within their respective policies, priorities and
resources which will lead to the prevention reduction, control and /or elimination of the degradation of the
marine environment, as well as to its recovery from the impacts of land-based activities. The programmes final
chapter provides specific guidance to states and regional organisations concerning actions for addressing
particular sources of land-based pollution, namely sewage, persistent organic pollutants, radioactive
substances, heavy metals, oils (hydrocarbons), nutrients, sediment, litter, and habitat destruction and alteration.
In November 2001, Canada hosted the first intergovernmental review of the GPA in Montreal. Approximately 100
governments attended the meeting, at which the central role of national governments in implementing the GPA
was reaffirmed, and the critical role of respective RSPs in facilitating coordination was highlighted. The urgent
need to integrate coastal resource management and coastal zone protection with river basin management
was also emphasised (www.gpa.unep.org/about/default.htm).
The Global International Water Assessment (GIWA) was initiated to provide up-to-date information on water
resources, including coastal waters, as required by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and its partners.
The overall objective of GIWA is:
To develop a comprehensive strategic assessment that may be used by GEF and its partners to
identify priorities for remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters, designed to achieve
significant environmental benefits at national, regional and global levels.
(www.giwa.net/)
GIWA assesses key issues and problems facing the aquatic environment, with a special focus on international
water boundaries. In addition to comprehensive assessments of international water issues, GIWA also undertakes
strategic ecological assessments of transboundary waters and analyses policy options in order to provide
pertinent scientific advice to decision-makers and water managers.

14
4

Just as the coastal environment is a complex system, so is it prone to a complex array of problems. Addressing
these problems requires a broad range of institutions working on different coastal issues in a coordinated
manner. The integration of physical, chemical, biological and geological observations with

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

socio-economic requirements has been recognised as a key priority in coastal management


(www.ioc.unesco.org/goos/cozo.htm). The purpose of creating a coastal module for the Global Ocean
Observing System (GOOS) was to provide nations with a unified framework for addressing coastal issues.
As shown in Figure 2, the system is coordinated by the Coastal Ocean Observation Panel (COOP),
which integrates and refines plans drafted by agencies such as Health of the Oceans (HOTO), the Living Marine
Resources (LMR) panel and Coastal
Global Observing Systems (CGOOS)
(www.ioc.unesco.org/goos/
CGOOS
HOTO
LMR
coop_tr.htm). The LMR panel,
established in 1996, is charged with
the strategic development, scientific
IOC
and technical design of a global
coastal observation system, as well
WMO
as maintaining liaison with research
GOOS
projects such as Global Ocean
Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) and
UNEP
Land-Ocean Interactions in the
Coastal Zone (LOICZ), the Food and
ICSU
Agricultural Organisation (FAO), and
other modules of GOOS. The HOTO
agency is responsible for assessing
COOP
the state and trends of the marine
environment, effects of
anthropogenic activities, and risks
Figure 2: Framework of the Coastal Ocean Observation Panel (COOP)
to human and marine health.
The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), an international scientific research programme,
has developed eight core projects concerned with global analysis (see Figure 3). Although all eight of these
research projects have some link to the coastal zone, three of them Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal
Zone (LOICZ), the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS), and GLOBEC specifically address physical processes
that directly relate to the coastal zone. The LOICZ project examines how changes in land use, sea levels and
climate affect coastal ecosystems. This project has two major components. The first examines the influence of
human activities on changes in the coastal zone, and the impact of these changes on human welfare. The
second addresses the scaling of the material flux models at spatial scales from local to global levels. The JGOFS
study attempts to answer the key question: How do ocean biological processes influence and respond to
climate change? The GLOBEC project examines how global change will affect marine ecosystems and
potential feedbacks to physical climate systems. The main goal of all these projects is to improve understanding
of key physical processes and how their impacts and linkages affect both the environment and people
(www.igbp.kva.se/cgi-bin/php/frameset.php).

GAIM: GLOBAL ANALYSIS


INTEGRATION AND MODELING
IGAC: INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL
ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY
BANC: BIOSPHERIC ASPECTS
OF THE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE
GCTE: GLOBAL CHANGE AND
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
LUCC: LAND USE AND
LANDCOVER CHANGE

PAGES: PAST
GLOBAL CHANGES
PRES
200
200

,000

YEA

0 YE

RS A

ARS

ENT

TOD

LOICZ: LAND-OCEAN INTERACTIONS IN THE COASTAL ZONE

AY

AGO

JGOFS: JOINT GLOBAL


OCEAN FLUX STUDY

GO

GLOBEC: GLOBAL OCEAN


ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS
IGBP-DIS: DATA AND
INFORMATION SERVICES

START: SYSTEM FOR ANALYSIS,


RESEARCH AND TRAINING

IGBP Core Projects


Source: http://www.igbp.kva.se/cgi-bin/php/frameset.php

Figure 3: International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Projects

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

15
5

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a four-year international programme launched in June 2001, does
not have a specific coastal focus. It is another attempt by the international community to address the needs of
decision-makers and the public for greater scientific information concerning the consequences of ecosystem
change and options for responding to those changes (www.millenniumassessment.org/2/about.overview.aspx).
The MA produced its first report Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment, 2003 to
offer decision-makers and professionals a mechanism for identifying options that better achieve integrated
management of land, water and living resources.
Despite having no direct coastal agenda, the FAO of the United Nations operates a number of programmes
dealing with coastal issues at the global level, including the Global Information and Early Warning System
(GIEWS), the Fisheries and Aquaculture Programme, and the Forestry Programme. The FAO first initiated GIEWS in
1975, primarily to address issues related to world food production. The FAO Fisheries Programme produces the
respected State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) report every two years, which provides a global
view of fish capture, aquaculture and policy issues. The Forestry Programme is concerned with maximising the
potential of trees, forests and related resources to improve economic and social standards in a sustainable
manner. The programme collects, analyses and disseminates information on production, trade and
consumption, while monitoring production and consumption trends as a basis for long-term policy
formulation and planning (www.fao.org/docrep/).
Environmental change, particularly climate change, significantly impacts on coastal environments. Changes in
weather patterns, particularly precipitation and temperature changes, affect economic activities as well as the
lives of people and ecosystems. Understanding climate change is thus vital to understanding coastal issues. In
recognition of the potential impact of climate change, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and UNEP
in 1988 established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess all the available scientific,
technical and socio-economic information related to human-induced climate change (www.ipcc.ch/). The
IPCC has three working groups and a taskforce addressing national greenhouse gas inventories. The working
groups are organised to assess:

Scientific aspects of climate systems and climate change;

Vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change and its consequences;

Options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions; and

Emissions and adaptive response measures.


Based upon scientific observations, the IPCC indicated that global warming is primarily linked to the emission
of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The panels working groups
have produced many assessment reports on climate change. Its latest research attributes several recent
developments to climate change, including the shrinking of glaciers, permafrost thawing, increases in rainfall
and rainfall intensity in mid-latitude areas, the lengthening of growing seasons, and changes in the emergence
of insects (IPCC, 2001).
The national Coastal Ocean Programme (COP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) produced a report in 2000 on the potential consequences of climate variability and change on coastal
areas and marine resources. This study, focused on the national level in the United States, represented the first
comprehensive assessment of a coastal region. The primary objective was to assess potential impacts on
coastal and marine resources associated with climate variability and projected climate change. To understand
the impacts of climate change on particular ecosystems and issues, specific case studies were included. The
report proposed the integration of climate variability and change into all coastal planning, and emphasised the
importance of developing mitigation and adaptation mechanisms for the long-term sustainability of coastal
resources (Boesch et al, 2000).
A change in the average air temperature and precipitation are significant components of projected global
climate change. Geological records, fossil plants and the distribution of pollen show that past vegetation
changes are consistent with climate changes. According to research on the suns contribution to global warming
by astrophysicist Mark Cliverd of the British Antarctic Survey, the solar contribution to global warming accounts for
up to 20%, while the remainder is made up of greenhouse gases (www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov). The IPCC
third assessment report (2001) states that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are highly likely to
cause warming of the Earth, but factors such as solar variability could amplify or subdue the effect
(www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/).
6
16

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Evidence suggests that increasing greenhouse gases since the late 19th century may have resulted in the
increase of global surface temperatures by 0.60C (www.ncdc.noaa.gov). This trend will continue for the next 100
years, with increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases potentially increasing mean surface air temperatures by
1-50C ( http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html, Houghton et. al, 1996; Warrick et
al, 1993). Changes in climate, particularly short-term climatic variations, affect the intensity and frequency of
storms and shoreline erosion rates, causing loss of life and property in coastal areas. In 1992, under the direction
of the IPCC, a global vulnerability assessment was produced to identify the impact of accelerated sea-level rise
on coastal nations (Hoozemans, 1993).
The independent, non-profit World Conservation and Monitoring Center (WCMC) jointly founded in 1988
by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) and UNEP is another institute
concerned with the health and fate of coastal environments. The WCMC, which recently became UNEPs
global biodiversity information and assessment centre, aims to provide vital information for policy and actions
to conserve the living world. As well as assessment and early warning work in forest, dry land, freshwater and
marine ecosystems, the centre provides environmental information to the general public on the impacts of
climate change on biodiversity. Its biodiversity and climate change programme has conducted a number
of projects examining the impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems, coral reefs and marine life
(www.unep-wcmc.org/).
In 2001, UNEP-WCMC completed an important
assessment on coral reefs entitled The World Atlas of
Coral Reefs. The atlas provides a global assessment of
reefs with detailed maps and statistics, as well as
assessments for individual countries. Coral reefs are highly
sensitive to land-based pollution and changes in water
temperature. The atlas reports that 58% of the worlds
reefs are under threat from human activities and
emphasises the urgent need to conserve biologically
diverse marine habitats for future generations.

Coral reefs are under assault. They are


rapidly being degraded by human activities.
They are damaged by irresponsible tourism
and are being severely stressed by the
warming of the worlds oceans.
Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director UNEP
Source: BBC News, September 11, 2001

The Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE), conducted by WRI in cooperation with UNEP, UNDP and the World
Bank, assesses the current state of the worlds ecosystems. The study shows that human actions have profoundly
changed the extent, condition and capacity of all major ecosystem types (Burke et. al. 2001). Primary impacts
include agricultural expansion into forest areas, changes in river systems due to engineering projects, damming
in catchment areas, the development of settlements in coastal habitats, and the degradation of water
resources. To address these issues, accurate and timely data on coastal areas are clearly essential. According
to the PAGE study, key information needs include: the location and extent of coastal ecosystems; historical data
on coastal habitats; better and more consistent classification schemes and data-sets to classify the worlds
coasts; use of high resolution satellite data in mapping coastal habitats; and documentation of the effects
of human disturbances on coastal ecosystems (Burke et al, 2001).
Availability of reliable data and coordinated research are important prerequisites for effective coastal
management. Data on relative sea-level trends, elevations, vertical and horizontal land movements,
geomorphology, geology, population trends, urban development and climate change all are important
requirements in coastal vulnerability studies. There have been a number of attempts to fill these data gaps.
The first was the coastal hazard database developed by Gornitz and Kanciruk (1989) for a section of the United
States coastal zone. This database has been used to calculate the relative vulnerability of coastal areas along
the US west coast to projected increases in air and sea temperature and sea-level change. In addition, work
carried out by the Synthesis and Upscaling of Sea-level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Studies (SURVAS)
(www.survas.mdx.ac.uk) and the Dynamic and Interactive Assessment of National, Regional and Global
Vulnerability of Coastal Zones to Climate Change and Sea-level Rise (DINAS-COAST) has aimed to develop a
network of international scientists and improve understanding of accelerated sea-level rise and its impact on
coastal areas. In order to improve the quality of data used in vulnerability studies, DINAS-COAST initiated another
tool the Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment (DIVA) that enables users to produce quantitative
data on climate, socio-economic and vulnerability indicators at national, regional and global scales.
Many institutions have been involved in studying components of and processes affecting coastal ecosystems,
including global warming, climate change, physical and biological processes, biodiversity, coral reefs and
pollution. The general consensus is that coastal environments are being degraded worldwide and that the

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

17
7

impacts are mainly attributable to anthropogenic factors and climate change. The main constraints in
addressing these issues have been the lack of accurate and timely information and a widespread lack of
coordination.

8
18

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

4.
Data and Methods
A main constraint of any global study is a lack of reliable
published data. The data used in this study are from the
most relevant, currently available data-sets suitable for
understanding coastal issues and the vulnerability of
coastal populations at the global level. The following
sections describe the data-sets used for this study.

Definition of the Coastal Zone


The area of the coastal zone encompasses
the upper limits of catchments of coastal
rivers to the seaward limits of terrestrial
influence, including marine life such as
fish and coral reefs. For planning and
management purposes, a definition based
on distance is required. In this study, the
coastal zone is defined as the terrestrial area
within 100km of the coastline, which is the
line forming the boundary between the land
and sea, defined by the mean high-water
mark (New Zealand National Topo/Hydro
Authority). This is an operational definition to
study the human vulnerability in the global
coastal zone at 1km cell resolution.

4.1 Data
1. World Coastline Data: World coastline (the
boundary between the land area and the sea)
data were taken from the World Factbook
developed by the Central Intelligence Agency,
USA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/
factbook/index.html ).
2. Global Land Cover Distribution Data: The
USGS land cover database (Loveland et al,
2000) was used as a base map to update
forest cover maps for many parts of the world
for the year 1995 using the FAO classification system (FAO, 1995). This database was built on
characteristics of vegetation seasonality determined in terms of weekly composites of Normalised
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from the NOAA AVHRR sensor for the period 1992-93
(http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/ ). In the database, unique NDVI signatures and associated attributes, such
as terrain and eco-regions, characterise large-area land cover patterns. In this study, areas covered by
different forest classes closed forests (density >40%), open and fragmented forests (density 10-40%),
and other woodlands were taken from the 1995 forest cover database. Areas covered by grassland,
cultivation and water were taken from the USGS land cover database.
3. Global Population Database: The geographically referenced population database was provided by
the UNEP/Global Resources Information Database (GRID) (www.unep.net/). These data-sets for 1990
were generated using a model incorporating many variables. The predicted global population
statistical data were taken from the World Resources Database CD-ROM (2000, 2010, 2025, 2050)
published by the World Resources Institute (WRI, 2001).
4. Global Protected Area Database: UNEP-WCMC (www.unep-wcmc.org/) provided the protected areas
database (1992, 1996). The definition of a protected area adopted by IUCN is: An area of land and/
or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural
and associated cultural resources and managed through legal or other effective means (WCMC
2000).
5. Biodiversity Hotspots: Conservation International (CI), a body of conservation professionals based in
Washington DC, provided the biodiversity hotspots database (www.conservation.org/). The hotspots are
considered to be the Earths biologically richest yet most endangered eco-regions. CI has identified
the following 25 regions as the worlds leading biodiversity hotspots:
1. California Floristic Province
2. Mesoamerica
3. Choc-Darin, Western Ecuador
4. Tropical Andes
5. Central Chile
6. Caribbean
7. Brazilian Cerrado
8. Atlantic Forest Region
9. Mediterranean Basin
10. Guinean Forest of West Africa
11. Succulent Karoo
12. Caucasus

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

19
9

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
6.

7.

8.

9.

Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forest of Tanzania and Kenya


Cape Floristic Province
Indo-Burma
Western Ghats and Sri Lanka
Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands
Mountains of South-Central China
Sundaland
Philippines
Wallacea
Southwest Australia
Polynesia-Micronesia
New Caledonia
New Zealand (Myers et al, 2000).

Political Boundaries Data: The political boundaries data-set was taken from the U.S. National Imagery
and Mapping Agencys Vector Map Level 0 series CD-ROM. Among other things, this data-set provides
a 1995 version of the political boundaries of the world at 1:1 million nominal scales. Attribute
assignments were verified and corrected as needed for the resulting polygon coverage and
subsequent coverages were joined to generate an updated map.
Worlds Cities: Distribution of the worlds cities was taken from the United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs: Population Division (www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm), as at March
2004.
World Natural Hazard Database: The World Natural Hazard database was developed by the Office
of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance/Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (OFDA/CRED)
(2000). It identified 13 natural hazards, with tropical storms as the most devastating to coastal
environments. Coastal regions are exposed to the direct impacts of windstorms as well as large
waves and tidal surges. In this study, only natural disasters such as storms, tropical storms, cyclones,
hurricanes, typhoons, tidal waves and tsunamis were considered, as they appear to cause most
of the damage suffered by coastal areas.
Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation Data Set (GTOPO30): The GTOPO30 is a global digital elevation
model (DEM) with a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 1 kilometre). The
GTOPO30 was derived from several raster and vector sources of topographic information. Completed
in late 1996, GTOPO30 was developed over a three-year period through a collaborative effort led by
staff at the USGS EROS Data Center (EDC) ( http://.edcdaac.usgs.gov/gtopo30/gtopo30.html).

All raster data-sets used in this study were acquired at 1:1,000,000 (1km grid cell) scale to cover the entire Earth.
However, this coarse resolution does not allow sufficient detail for local or regional analyses. The availability of
high quality, current global data-sets remains a major constraint for regional and global studies.

4.2 Methods
The study was carried out in two stages. First, the socio-economic indicators, pressures and current status of key
environmental factors relevant to coastal vulnerability were assessed using the DPSIR model. The factors included
were population distribution and density in coastal areas, land cover distribution, threats to biodiversity hotspots,
and the probability of natural hazards related to storms, waves and tidal surges. The purpose of the studys
second stage was to assess the impacts of population, land cover, climate-related processes (natural hazards),
and topographical characteristics of landscape on human vulnerability in global coastal areas.

10
20

The study was based on the premise that people and their environments are interdependent. Human activities
modify, shape and affect environmental processes. Changes in the condition of natural systems have a direct
impact on the ecosystem functions that humans depend upon for their socio-economic wellbeing (Bowen and
Riley 2003). Therefore, better understanding of the linkages between socio-economic conditions and coastal
environmental dynamics is a prerequisite that will lead to more sustainable management of the coastal zone.
The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model developed by the Organisation for Economic Corporation and
Development (OECD) is an example framework for environmental evaluation. The main limitation of the PSR
model is its limited focus on anthropogenic factors. It does not effectively address pressures resulting from
environmental change. In addressing these limitations, a modified framework (Driving Force-State-Response
model) incorporating social, economic, institutional and natural system pressures into the PSR model was
developed by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

(www.unece.org/env/europe/monitoring/EnvMonRep/en/). The DPSIR framework of the European Environmental


Agency is an extended version of the Driving Force-State-Response framework developed by UNCSD
(www.unece.org/env/europe/monitoring/EnvMonRep/en/).
Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR): A framework for evaluating socio-economic and
environmental indicators of coastal vulnerability
Despite the incompleteness or complete lack of measurable data-sets for some indicators at the global level,
the DPSIR framework appears to be a practical approach for describing dynamic linkages between socioeconomic and environmental indicators of coastal vulnerability. The complexity of human and environment
interactions in the coastal zone, issues and response strategies are described using Driving force, Pressure,
State, Impact and Responses (see Figure 4).
Driving Forces
Driving forces that shape and influence the wellbeing of humans and coastal ecosystems include socioeconomic factors and natural or environmental factors. Increasing human presence in the coastal zone,
coastal land use and land cover patterns, and the growth of cities all increase the demand for coastal
resources, leading to the potential degradation of coastal ecosystems. Environmental factors are mainly
related to environmental hazards and climate change resulting from human actions and/or natural trends.
Pressure
Pressure indicators describe the issues and problems resulting from population concentrations in the coastal
zone, coastal tourism, the growth of coastal cities and urbanisation.
State
State indicators relate to observable changes, including the current state of population distribution, densely
populated coastal cities, rising global temperatures and sea levels, and changes within biodiversity hotspots.
These changes heavily impact upon the quality of life in coastal communities and upon sensitive coastal
ecosystems.
Impact
These are the effects of a changed environment. Impacts of pressures are evident in changes in land cover,
coastal forest and wetland degradation, coral bleaching, saltwater intrusion, increasing storm activities, water
pollution, beach degradation and coastal erosion.
Response
Responses to the problems include measures and strategies adopted by decision-makers to alleviate the
impacts, as well as research to raise awareness of key issues. Assessments of coastal vulnerability using existing
data are an important first step. Restrictions on residential developments, policies for protecting pristine
ecosystems such as wetlands and coral reefs, taxes on greenhouse gases, and the sustainable use of coastal
resources are some of the main responses that policymakers and planners can take to mitigate vulnerability.
It is important that these strategies are implemented within a coordinated framework. The ICZM concept
provides an holistic approach and a coordinated framework in which to address these issues.

Driving Forces
Socio-economic and
natural processes

Pressures
Coastal issues

State
Current state of issues

Responses
Assessment of coastal vulnerability
Development of sustainable
management strategies (ICZM)

Impact
Changes in the
coastal ecosystem

Figure 4: DPSIR model for assessing coastal vulnerability

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

11
21

GIS analysis was performed using the GRID module of Arc/Info combined with other vector GIS analytical tools.
Raster and vector data layers were in an Interrupted Goode Homolosine Projection. The diagram below shows
the data analysis process used in the study.

World coastline data and country boundary


data were used to define the 100km coastal
zone. All global data layers were overlaid
with the coastal zone data layer to identify
the driving forces, pressures and state of the
coastal zone and their impacts on the global
coastal zone. The data were then used in
assessing global coastal vulnerability.

World coastline

Coastal zone

Country boundary

Global data
layers

Global coastal
zone

Overlay
coverage

Status of
coatal zone
(see layers below)

Coastal
vulnerability

Figure 5: Data analysis process

12
22

The following data layers were used in the study:


1. Population distribution layer: The coastal zone was defined as incorporating a buffer of 100km
around the continental boundaries, excluding Antarctica and inland lakes. The buffer zone was
overlaid with the population grid data to produce the population distribution data layer.
2. Population density in the coastal zone data layer: The coastal population data layer and the total
available land area in the coastal zone for each country were used in calculating population
densities. The following classification was used for population density:
Low population density:
< 25 people/km2
Medium population density: 25-100 people/km2
High population density:
>100 people/km2
3. Land cover distribution in coastal zones data layer: The land cover distribution in coastal zones, by
country, was estimated by combining the political boundary grid, the 100km buffer zone grid, and the
land cover distribution grid.
4. Protection status of coastal zones data layer: The protection status of coastal zones was estimated
by combining the protected area grid with the 100km buffer zone and political boundary grids.
5. Biodiversity hotspots in coastal zones data layer: Biodiversity hotspots in coastal zones were
estimated by combining the hotspots grid with the 100km buffer zone and political boundary grids.
6. Projection of population in coastal zones data layer: Preliminary projection numbers of population
and population pressure in the coastal zone were presented separately for 2000, 2010, 2025 and
2050. The percentage of population in the coastal zone by country in 1990 was multiplied by the
projected total population in order to predict the population in the coastal zone in 2000, 2010, 2025
and 2050. A linear population growth rate was projected for each countrys coastal zone.
7. Distribution of the worlds cities in coastal zones data layer: A grid of cities with more than 100,000
people was combined with the buffer layer in order to obtain the number of cities located in the
100km coastal zone.
8. Distribution of surface elevation in coastal zones data layer: A digital elevation data layer showing
surface topographic characteristics of the global coastal zone was generated from the Global 30 ArcSecond Elevation Data Set. Elevation data with greater than 0m and less than 50m values were
selected to produce a lowland layer. This coarse resolution digital elevation model shows very few

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

details for small island developing states which are less than 100km in width. Tropical islands and
small states were individually assessed as some have volcanic bases with steep hills in the centre and
narrow coastal strips (eg. Haiti, Dominica, Vanuatu, St. Kitts & Nevis, Fiji, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
and St. Lucia). Populations in these countries are generally concentrated on narrow coastal lowlands,
where they are vulnerable to natural hazards such as erosion, landslides, floods and exposure to
tropical storms.
9. Assessment of natural hazard risk in coastal zones data layer: Effects of storms, tidal waves and
storm surges are primarily limited to coastal areas. The reported number of storms and tidal waves over
the past 100 years (1900-99) was extracted from the World Natural Hazard Database developed by
OFDA/CRED, and used to assess the probable distribution of disaster incidents in global coastal
countries.
10. Assessment of coastal zone vulnerability data layer: The vulnerability of human populations in
coastal zones is primarily related to their exposure to hazards and their coping capacities. The spatial
distribution of vulnerability was assessed by (a) developing indices for each indicator (population
pressure, land cover, natural hazards and geographic exposure) and utilising the Human Development
Index (HDI) developed by UNDP, and (b) combining all indices according to a formula [equation 1] to
produce an index value for each country. The population pressure, land cover, geographic exposure
and storm surges were selected to show the exposure to hazards, while the HDI was selected to
represent the coping capacity. This preliminary assessment was carried out for 117 coastal nations.
(Although the 1992 IPCC Coastal Vulnerability Study assessed 179 nations, this study excluded some,
either because they were too small to assess on a global scale, or because of lack of assessable
data).
11. World coastline data layer: The potential exposure to rising sea-levels, storms and wave surges at
the global level was calculated using the topography and the length of a countrys coastline as a
proportion of the total length of its boundaries.

13
23

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

5.
The Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework and the
Global Coastal Zone
5.1 Driving forces affecting coastal and marine ecosystems
Population
The concentration of people and cities in coastal areas increases the demand for limited land resources.
Intense human activities degrade the quality of air, land and water. People and ecosystems in coastal areas
are relatively more exposed to the effects of coastal floods, rising sea-levels, storms and tidal surges.
It has long been acknowledged that coastal areas are among the most crowded, over-developed and overexploited regions in the world (Hinrichsen et al, 1995; Small et al, 2000; Small and Nicholls, 2003; Mitchell et al,
2001). According to a recent NOAA Coastal Programme study, many parts of the global coastal zone have
the highest rates of population growth (Boesch et al, 2000). Many scientists and international agencies have
attempted to estimate the total coastal population (see Table 1). In 1992, the United Nations estimated that
more than half of the worlds population lives within 60km of a shoreline. According to the United Nations
Association in Canada, seven out of ten people live within 80km of the ocean and almost half of all cities with
a population of over one million are located around coastal areas and river mouths (UNA, 1991). More recently,
the World Resources Institute estimated that 40% of the worlds population lives within 100km of the coastline
an area comprising one-fifth of the global land mass (WRI, 2000).
However, to date, there has been no reliable country-by-country estimate of the number of people living in
global coastal areas. This is primarily due to lack of consistent and uniform methods for assessing population
distributions in coastal areas, and the lack of a clear universal definition for the coastal zone. To understand
the significance of human population as a driving force of coastal change, it is clearly important to get a
reasonably accurate estimate of population sizes. This study represents a first attempt to provide country-bycountry estimates of total coastal populations, as well as their spatial distribution.
The population distribution pattern shows approximately two billion people 38% of the worlds population
living within a narrow fringe of coastal land, representing about 19% of the total land area. However, more
than 60% of the worlds coastal zones are covered by snow, ice, desert, closed forests or wetlands, which are
unsuitable for permanent habitation without extensive modification. Consequently, most of the two billion coastal
inhabitants live in less than 40% of the worlds coastal zones creating a very high population density in these
areas. In a larger context, about 38% of the worlds population lives on 7.6% of the Earths land area.
The population analysis shows particularly high population pressure in developing countries, especially in
Asia. According to the analysis, the 10 countries with the highest population density in the coastal zone are:
Bangladesh, the Maldives, China, India, South Korea, Barbados, Belgium, the Netherlands, Vietnam and Japan
(see Table 2). Coastal population densities in countries with large coastlines such as Canada (3 people/km2),
Russia (5), Australia (10) and the United States (68) are low, either because most of their coastal zones are
located in polar or desert regions or because their total populations are relatively small compared to their land
mass (see Appendix 1a). Australia is a special case, with 84% of its population living in a coastal zone that
occupies roughly 20% of the total land area; nevertheless, population pressure remains relatively low.

14
24

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 1: Population estimates for the global coastal zone from various sources
Source
Agenda 21

Author or
Organisation
United Nations

1992

Coasts in Crisis

Don Hinrichsen

1995

Protecting the
Ocean

United Nations
Association in
Canada
NOAA

1991

Population and
Development in
Coastal Areas

Population and
Environment
Linkages: Ocean
Human
Domination
of the Earths
Ecosystem
The Regional
Impacts of
Climate Change:
An Assessment of
Vulnerability
People and
Ecosystems
The Potential
Consequences of
Climate Variability
and Change on
Coastal Areas and
Marine Resources

Committee for
the National
Institute for the
Environment
P.M. Vitousek,
H.A. Mooney,
J. Lubchenco,
and J.M. Melillo
R.T. Watson,
M.C. Zinyowera,
R.H. Moss and
D.J. Dokken
World Resources
Institute (WRI)
NOAA

Year

Population
estimate
More than half,
potentially rising
to three-quarters
by 2020
54% of
Americans
Seven out
of ten

Scope of
coastal area
60km

Method of
study used
Not clear

772 coastal
counties
80km

Statistical
data
Not clear

673 coastal
countries on the
Atlantic and
Pacific oceans,
the Gulf of Mexico
and the Great
Lakes
60km

Statistical
data

1998

133 million

1998

60% of the
worlds
population

1997

60% of
population

100km

Not clear

1997

Half of the
population

Not clear

Not clear

2000

40% of the
population
53% of total
U.S. population

100km

GIS/No
details
Not clear

2000

17% of land in
the coastal zone

Not clear

The average population density in the global coastal zone has increased significantly in recent years from
77 people/km2 in 1990 to 87 people/km2 in 2000. The study estimated projected population densities for the
coastal zone with the assumption that coastal population growth will be similar to overall growth. Accordingly,
it is estimated that the coastal population density will increase to 99 people/km2 in 2010, 115 people/km2 in
2025, and 134 people/km2 in 2050. It is anticipated that coastal populations will continue to grow at a
proportionately greater rate than those in inland areas.

25
15

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 2: Population pressure and distribution in 10 countries with most populous coastlines*
Country

Population
(million people)
Total
% in
coastal
zone
128
76
0.3
100
1276
25
1006
27
47
100
0.3
100
10
83
16
90
81
90
126
96

Bangladesh
Maldives
China
India
South Korea
Barbados
Belgium
Netherlands
Vietnam
Japan

Land area
2
(thousand km )
Total
% in
coastal
zone
135
67
3
3
9402
6
3154
16
10
95
0.4
98
3
61
3
95
33
57
367
94

Ratio of coastal
population and
available coastal
land

Population density
in the coastal zone
available coastal
2
(people/km )

1.14
1.00
4.10
1.60
1.05
1.01
1.35
0.94
1.57
1.00

1,081
1,013
563
525
508
460
453
433
387
351

* Selected by the population density of coastal zone, total population, and size of coastal zone.

250

211

200

191
173

171
155

150

141
134
123

123

115
104
99

100

90

89

87

79
69

77

67

77

67
57

53

50

50
26

29 32

37

41

44

0
Africa

Australia and
Pacific

Europe and
Asia

1990

North America

2000

South America

2010

2025

World

2050

Figure 6: Projected population density trends in the coastal zone, by continent (people/km )

16
26

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Ratios of the percentage of people living in coastal zones compared to the percentage of coastal lands show
the relative distribution of populations between coastal and inland areas. If the ratio is 1, the proportion of the
population living in coastal areas equals the proportion of the coastal zone of that country. If the ratio is greater
than 1, the population concentration in coastal areas is more than the available land, creating greater
pressures on the land (eg. for Bangladesh ((% coastal lands (67.01)) / ((% coastal population (76.61)) = 1.14).
Table 2 shows that of the 10 countries with the most densely populated coastal zones, eight have a ratio greater
than one. In Japan and the United Kingdom, the coastal population proportion is equivalent to the proportion
of coastal land. This trend is further supported by Figure 7, which shows scatter diagrams of the ratios of people
living in coastal areas compared to inland populations in developed, developing and small island nations. With
few exceptions, almost all of the countries in the three regions have ratios above 1 (the diagonal represents
parity between the percentage of coastal population and that of coastal lands), indicating a widespread
tendency for populations to congregate in coastal areas. The figure further shows that almost every small
island state has a ratio of 1 or above, suggesting the strongly coastal nature of their populations.

Coastal cities
The development of coastal cities is another driving force that affects humans and ecosystems in coastal
areas. Coastal cities constitute not only collections of people and buildings, but complex systems of habitation,
infrastructure, public services and their wastes. As much of the coastline of global coastal regions is exposed
to windstorms, particularly in tropical and mid-latitude areas, urban settlements tend to be concentrated around
estuaries, river catchments, sheltered bays and ports. In many coastal regions, limited lowland areas have given
rise to long ribbon developments.
As people continue to relocate from rural areas to coastal cities, fragile coastal environments are being
exposed to ever growing pressures. Fast-growing coastal cities, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, are
expanding into areas that are vulnerable to marine-related natural hazards (Arthurton, 1998). As mega-cities
continue to sprout along the coastlines of Asia and Africa, marine resources and coastal water quality are
coming under intense pressure. According to the United Nations Population Division, approximately two-fifths
of the worlds major cities of 1-10 million people are now located near coastlines (Tibbetts, 2002). Increasing
international trade through sea ports and the growth of beach-based tourism promise to exacerbate this trend
even further in the future.

Exposure to storms, waves/tidal surges and rising sea-levels


Exposure to storms, waves and tidal surges, and to rising sea-levels, represent important driving forces that
affect people, marine and coastal ecosystems. Densely populated coastal regions with lengthy coastlines are
particularly exposed to these threats.
Among the environmental factors affecting coastal populations and ecosystems, the most visible and
devastating impacts are attributable to storm activities. These have increased in recent times due to the
increase in coastal populations, settlement in areas previously avoided, the increasing economic value
attached to new city developments and industrial areas, and global climate change due to anthropogenic
and physical factors. Coastal regions and island nations are particularly exposed, as they are affected not only
by the direct impact of storms but by the additional hazards of waves and tidal surges (MRC, 1998). Storms
also often bring heavy rainfall, which intensifies the occurrence of flooding, landslides and coastal erosion.

17
27

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

a. Developed Countries

coastal population as
percentage of total country
population

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

80

90

100

coastal zone as percentage of total country area

b. Developing Countries

coastal population as
percentage of total country
population

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

coastal zone as percentage of total country area

c. Small Nations and Island States

coastal population as
percentage of total country
population

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

coastal zone as percentage of total country area

Figure 7: Ratios of people living in coastal areas compared to inland

28
18

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Coastal and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as all human activities, are intrinsically linked to and affected by
climate. Global precipitation patterns, temperatures, ocean currents, waves, tides, wind and numerous other
factors support, modify and shape landforms, habitats and human activities. Cyclic interactions among oceans,
terrestrial land masses, the atmosphere and the suns radiation are necessary to sustain plant and animal life on
Earth. These processes have the capacity to adjust to temporal changes of climate and other factors that
maintain a balance between various components of the global system.
However, over the past 100 years, as the global population has grown and production systems advanced, so
too have demands for the natural energy sources that power so much of modern life. As mankind continues to
utilise fossil fuels and forest resources to power its inexorable progress, it continues to place an ever greater
burden on the Earths climate as well as using up the finite natural resources that play such an important role
in regulating it.

5.2 Pressures affecting coastal and marine ecosystems


Population density and growth
The global coastal zone is not only under pressure from high population densities, but from the continuing and
growing movement of people to coastal towns and cities. As habitable land is limited in most coastal regions,
this increasing settlement leads to ever greater population densities. The rapid development of coastal cities is
causing increasing environmental problems, such as decreasing freshwater inflows and pollution of estuaries,
and the degradation and destruction of vital habitats such as wetlands, coral reefs and sea grasses (Tibbetts,
2002).
It is estimated that coastal zones extending 100km inland occupy approximately 19.2% of the Earths total land
area. A comparison of population densities in the coastal zones and total land areas of each continent shows
that population densities are significantly higher in coastal areas (Table 3). In 2000, there were 87 people/km2
living in coastal zones compared to just 23 people/km2 living in inland areas. Of all the worlds coastal zones,
63.7% have low population densities, 19.2% have medium densities, and 17.1% have high population densities
(Figure 8 and Table 3). The highest population pressures are experienced in the coastal zones of Europe and
Asia, where nearly one-third of all land has a high population density.

High >100 people km

-2

Medium 25-100 people km


High >100 people km

-2

-2

Figure 8: Population pressure in gobal coastal zones

29
19

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 3: Comparison of population densities in coastal zones and total land areas
Continent
Density

Africa
Australia and Pacific
Europe and Asia
North America
South America
(Mesoamerica, Caribbean)
World

% of Low Population
Density
Coastal
Total land
zone
area
65.85
83.88
73.80
88.81
46.77
64.21
82.47
87.11

% of Medium Population
Density
Coastal
Total land
zone
area
23.31
11.97
13.19
6.14
22.34
18.18
10.74
8.90

Coastal
zone
10.84
13.02
30.89
6.79

Total land
area
4.15
5.05
17.60
3.99

59.34
63.67

32.54
19.22

8.12
17.12

3.09
9.38

83.24
76.97

13.67
13.65

% of High Population

2000 Data; Low PD: <25 people/km2, Medium PD: 25-100 people/km, High PD: >100 people/km2.

Coastal cities
More than 260 cities with populations of over 100,000 are located in the global coastal zone, representing
about half of the worlds cities. Among the 10 most populous cities in the coastal zone, five are in Asia, three in
South America, and two in North America (Table 4).
Table 4: The 10 most populous cities in the global coast zone
City

Tokyo
Mexico City*
Sao Paulo
New York
Bombay
Shanghai
Los Angeles
Calcutta
Buenos Aires
Seoul

Population
(in millions)
in 1996
27.2
16.9
16.8
16.4
15.7
13.7
12.6
12.1
11.9
11.8

Population
(in millions)
in 2015
28.9
19.2
20.3
17.6
26.2
18
14.2
17.3
13.9
13

Estimated
growth (in
millions)
1.7
2.3
3.5
1.2
10.5
4.3
1.6
5.2
2
1.2

Continent

Asia
South America
South America
North America
Asia
Asia
North America
Asia
South America
Asia

World Ranking
(by present
population size)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. *Not a coastal city.

Coastal cities in developing countries are growing relatively faster than in other regions. According to the World
Bank, over 90% of the population growth in developing countries is taking place in cities (www.worldbank.org/
urban/facts.html). Over the next decade, coastal cities in developing countries are expected to expand
significantly particularly in India, China and South America (Table 4).

5.3 State indicators of coastal and marine ecosystems


The current state of coastal ecosystems indicates that land cover and land use have changed dramatically as
a result of population growth and urbanisation. The growth of large cities, industries and tourism-based activities
continue to threat coastal and marine biodiversity, particularly coral reefs and other fragile benthic communities.
The already damaging effects of human settlement and pollution are now being exacerbated by global
warming, increasing storm activities and rising sea-levels.

20
30

Land cover and land use


The coastal zone, together with its natural habitats and resources, is vital to the survival of coastal communities
and the success of national economies. However, to date there have been no coordinated efforts to control the
growth of urban centres or settlement in the coastal zone. Uncontrolled urban expansion and the resulting

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

changes in coastal land use and land cover are creating enormous pressures on coastal and marine
ecosystems. These changes affect terrestrial and marine habitats, seawater and freshwater quality, and
freshwater availability.
Although countries with access to navigable waterways and coastlines have an advantage in terms of
economic development, it is invariably accompanied by population growth and urbanisation, which place
major demands on food production and resource use. In developed coastal areas, where land is limited and
competition for resources high, this usually leads to declining biodiversity, soil erosion and vanishing wetlands.
Sustainable management requires regular assessments of the distribution and utilisation of available land
resources. Without such knowledge, both communities and ecosystems are exposed to greater hazard risks.
Coastal zones are estimated to occupy 19.2% of the worlds land area. Of these coastal zones, forested lands
(closed forests, open and fragmented forests, and woodlands) cover 41.8%, barren land, snow and ice cover
37.2%, grasslands constitute 4.3%, cleared lands (built-up areas, cultivated areas and bare land) make up
14.8%, and wetlands and inland water bodies cover 1.9%.
Figure 9 presents a global picture of coastal land cover patterns. Several broad areas of vegetation cover can
be seen in North America, northwestern Europe, tropical South America, eastern Asia, eastern Australia, and
tropical western Africa. Barren land, ice and snow cover constitute most of the coastal zones of the Arctic,
western Australia, the Middle East, and the west coast of Saharan Africa.

Forests
Barren, Snow, and Ice
Grassland
Cultivation
Water

Figure 9: Landcover distribution in global coastal zones

21
31

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

1.88
14.81

World

4.28
37.24
41.79
1.65
16.14

South America

8.38
25.66
48.17
2.23
6.23

North America

1.73
53.59
36.22
2.47
2.47

Europe and Asia

1.51
33.02
39.98
0.95
15.67

Australia and Pacific

10.26
18.80
54.32
0.69
7.41

Africa

7.63
44.83
39.45
0.00

10.00

Forests

20.00

Barren, snow and ice

30.00

40.00

Grassland

50.00

Cultivation

60.00

Water

Figure 10: Illustrates the differences in the distribution of land cover between the continents. North America has the
highest percentage of snow, ice and barren land cover in its coastal zones, while the highest concentration of forests
is in Australia and the Pacific (54.3%). South America and the Australia/Pacific region have the highest proportion of
cleared areas (16.1% and 15.7% respectively), as well as the largest percentage of coastal grasslands (10.3% in the
Australia/Pacific region and 8.4% in South America). The presence of inland water bodies is low in all of the coastal
zones in comparison to other land cover categories.

Table 5 shows the distribution of coastal land cover types in the 10 countries with the largest coastal zones. As
well as forests, grasslands, cleared areas, snow and ice, wetlands and inland water bodies, the table also shows
the proportion of each countrys coastal zone that is covered by Conservation Internationals Biodiversity
Hotspots.

22
32

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 5: Coastal zone land cover distribution in countries with the largest coastal areas
Country

Total
land area
(000 ha)

Canada

983400.2

Russia

1681414.0

Norway

323895.0

United
States
Australia

940626.9
768639.9

Indonesia 188748.2
Brazil

850063.3

Mexico

195378.4

China

936666.7

India

315440.8

Chile

73076.3

Total
%
coastal
Forests
land
(000 ha %)

%
%
Grasslands Cleared
areas

%
Barren,
snow and
ice

342561.0
(34.83)
277218.7
(16.43)
270352.0
(83.47)
159850.9
(16.99)
157135.1
(20.39)
130343.5
(68.81)
77845.0
(9.12)
73630.3
(37.69)
56737.0
(6.03)
52702.9
(16.70)
47459.5
(64.81)

29.30

0.02

0.60

67.17

%
Wetlands
and
inland
water
bodies
2.91

35.42

2.21

1.92

56.82

59.80

4.92

0.38

47.94

4.37

45.60

%
Designated
protected
areas

%
Covered
by
Biodiversity
Hotspots

10.89

0.00

3.64

6.57

0.39

29.92

4.97

6.43

0.00

13.04

32.47

2.18

26.07

1.82

14.16

11.39

28.33

0.53

8.40

2.23

62.44

2.62

18.35

15.40

1.19

14.23

53.87

67.35

3.56

19.65

7.61

1.83

3.83

4.60

50.62

4.07

11.90

32.74

0.67

5.57

23.82

36.93

1.19

55.16

4.38

2.34

2.20

0.86

34.41

0.05

47.52

16.60

1.42

7.36

3.81

30.14

10.27

6.91

50.42

2.26

16.36

30.08

The United States, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico have more than the worlds average (42%) forest cover in their
coastal areas. China and India have large areas of cleared land (55% and 48% respectively), while Russia,
Chile and Canada have a large proportion of coastal lands that are barren or covered in snow and ice.

Biodiversity hotspots
Biodiversity hotspots are terrestrial regions that support an important diversity of endemic species, but that have
been significantly altered or impacted upon by human activities (www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/).
Biodiversity, the variety and variability among living organisms and the environment in which they occur, is vital
for maintaining life-sustaining systems throughout the biosphere (WCMC, 1992). However, due to the destructive
influence of humans, biodiversity in many places is decreasing at an alarming rate. It is feared that many
undiscovered species will become extinct even before they are identified. More than 80% of the eco-regions
studied will suffer extinctions of plant and animal species as a result of global warming. Some of the most
unique and diverse natural ecosystems may also lose over 70% of their habitats (Malcolm et al, 2002). However,
according to Watson et al (2000), 85-90% of all species could be saved by identifying and protecting them
before their habitats are further degraded.
At the global level, coral reef degradation is a particularly serious concern (Goreau and Hayes, 1994; Hodgson,
1999). The first 10 years of the 21st century have been called the last chance decade (Mittermeier et al, 1999)
and may be among the most critical for many species and ecosystems. Relatively few places remain where
endemic biodiversity is still robust. The 25 hotspots identified by Conservation International are remote,
spectacular and in danger of being destroyed. To protect the diversity of life on Earth, it is essential that
these invaluable habitats are offered special and urgent protection (Mittermeier et al, 1999).
Figure 11 illustrates the proportion of biodiversity hotspots that fall within the coastal zone on each continent.
Globally, just over 40% (63,670 km2) of the area covered by biodiversity hotspots is concentrated within the
coastal zone. The distribution shows that, in relation to the total area of hotspots found on each continent,
23
33

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

48% are in the coastal zone in Africa, 74.5% in Australia and the Pacific, 35.9% in Europe and Asia, 68.7% in
North America, and 17.1% in South America. The ratio of coastal hotspots designated as protected to total
protected coastal areas is 17.6% in North America, 46.8 % in Australia and the Pacific, 16.8% in Europe and
Asia, 34.8% in South America, and 24.8% in Africa. The ratio of protected coastal hotspots to the total area of
hotspots within the coastal zone is 12.4% in North America, 10.9 % in Australia and the Pacific, 7.5% in Europe
and Asia, 6.7% in South America, and just 2.3% in Africa. Details of the hotspots in each region can be found
at www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/.

8.48

World

24.75
40.67
06.68

South America

34.80
17.07
12.42

North America

17.58
68.73
7.51

Europe and Asia

16.76
35.86
10.88

Australia and Pacific

46.81
74.48
2.27

Africa

29.77
48.05
0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

ratio of protected coastal hotspots to total protected coastal areas


ratio of protected coastal hotspots to total area of coastal hotspots
ratio of hotspots in coastal zones to total area of continental hotspots

Figure 11: Percentage distribution of area of biodiversity hotspots in coastal zones, by continent

Table 6 shows the proportion of each biodiversity hotspot that lies within the coastal zone, and its protection
status. Of the 25 hotspots worldwide, 23 are at least partially within the global coastal zone (the exceptions are
Brazilian Cerrado and the mountains of Southwest China). Nine hotspots have at least 90% of their area in the
global coastal zone; only three have less than 30% of their area in the coastal zone.
The relatively small percentage of hotspots that are protected in the global coastal zone is alarming. Only 8.5%
of the total area of the hotspots located in the coastal zone is included in protected areas. As the table shows,
only two hotspots have over 20% of their areas under protection.

24
34

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 6: Percentage of each hotspot and its protection status within the coastal zone
Hotspot
Atlantic Forest
California Floristic Province
Cape Floristic Region
Caribbean
Caucasus
Central Chile
Choco-Darien Western Ecuador
Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forest
of Tanzania and Kenya
Guinean Forests of West Africa
Indo-Burma
Madagascar & Indian Ocean Isles
Mediterranean Basin
Mesoamerica
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Philippines
Polynesia & Micronesia
Southwest Australia
Succulent Karoo
Sundaland
Tropical Andes
Wallacea
Western Ghats & Sri Lanka
World

% in the coastal zone


26.43
47.71
89.67
99.78
20.63
76.79
91.83

% that is protected
1.58
28.28
1.08
8.79
7.01
4.28
11.15

39.30
35.12
30.76
59.38
73.95
67.91
91.27
99.57
96.30
99.90
55.74
68.89
68.01
6.93
88.98
68.10
40.74

2.81
3.70
9.05
1.65
1.84
9.27
1.68
11.20
3.38
0.00
11.36
2.11
11.34
32.15
13.38
12.01
8.50

None of the biodiversity hotspots in Polynesia and Micronesia fall within designated protected areas. The
hotspot with the largest protected area is the Tropical Andes; 32% of the coastal part of this hotspot is currently
protected. Establishing immediate protection status for the areas that remain unprotected is clearly of critical
importance.
A major obstacle in protecting some biodiversity hotspots is their transboundary nature. Among the 23 hotspots
that fall partly within the coastal zone, parts of 14 lie within the borders of more than 58 countries (see Table 7).
The Caribbean and Mediterranean basin hotspots extend over the borders of 15 and 12 countries, respectively.

35
25

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 7: Percentage distribution of areas of transboundary hotspots within the global coastal zone
Hotspot

Countries covered (%)

Atlantic Forest
California Floristic Province
Caribbean

Brazil (99.99), Uruguay (0.01)


Mexico (15.8), United States (84.2)
Bahamas (3.07), Cuba (43.48), Dominican Republic (19.38), Haiti (10.71),
Jamaica (4.39), Puerto Rico (3.55), United States (12.28), others (2.11)
Argentina (2.94), Chile (97.06)
Colombia (38.29), Ecuador (33.27), Panama (13.67), Peru (14.77)
Kenya (8.61), Tanzania (91.39)

Indo-Burma

Mediterranean Basin

Mesoamerica
Succulent Karoo
Sundaland
Tropical Andes
Western Ghats & Sri Lanka

Coral reefs and mangroves


Coral reefs are widely used by coastal
communities and the tourism industry
for food, recreation and income.
An estimated 255,500 km2 of shallow
coral reefs exist worldwide, with more
than 90% in the Indo-Pacific region
(Spalding and Grenfell, 1997). Coral
reef areas have been significantly
reduced or destroyed through human
actions and climate change in many
parts of the world (WRI, 2000). Reefs
are highly sensitive to sea surface
temperature changes. Coral
bleaching, a phenomenon caused
by various types of stress, including
temperature changes, pollution and
exposure to air, destroyed many reefs
around the world during the 1997-98
El Nio, and affected virtually all of
the reefs in the Maldives, Chagos
Archipelago and Seychelles (Spencer
et al, 2000). This is a clear indication of
the potential future impact of climate
change on coral reefs globally.

26
36

Benin (1.94), Cameroon (8.54), Cote dIvoire (Ivory Coast) (17.16), Ghana
(14.77), Guinea (3.50), Liberia (15.97), Nigeria (24.92), Sierra Leone (10.77),
Togo (2.43)
Bangladesh (2.67), Cambodia (6.33), China (11.55), India (1.70), Laos
(4.06), Myanmar (Burma) (27.53), Thailand (19.15), Vietnam (26.74),
Malaysia (0.27)
Algeria (4.82), Cyprus (2.30), France (3.72), Greece (11.54), Israel (2.29),
Italy (13.82), Lebanon (2.61), Libya (4.00), Morocco (10.82), Spain (16.88),
Turkey (26.26), Syria (0.91), others (0.02)
Belize (2.81), Costa Rica (6.49), El Salvador (2.59), Guatemala (6.09),
Honduras (9.61), Mexico (56.47), Nicaragua (10.24), Panama (5.71)
Namibia (21.27), South Africa (78.73)
Indonesia (73.16), Malaysia (25.09), Thailand (1.18), Brunei (0.58)
Chile (4.08), Colombia (22.97), Ecuador (17.89), Peru (24.49), Venezuela
(30.56)
India (62.44), Sri Lanka (37.56)

Pascal Kobeh / Still Pictures

Central Chile
Choco-Darien Western Ecuador
Eastern Arc Mountains and
Coastal Forest of Tanzania and Kenya
Guinean Forests of West Africa

Figure 12: Bleached corals

Mangroves grow along approximately 8% of the worlds coastline (Burke et al, 2001) and about one-quarter
of all tropical coastlines, covering a surface area of approximately 181,000 km2. Mangrove forests are vital to
coastal communities as fish spawning grounds, sources of timber, and barriers against the damaging effects of
storms and tides. However, they too are under immense pressure from human exploitation and rising sea-levels.

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Approximately 112 countries and territories have mangroves within their borders (Spalding et al, 1997), but some
studies estimate that half of the worlds mangroves have already been destroyed (Kelleher et al, 1995). The main
human impacts include felling for firewood and building materials, clearance for aquaculture or road
construction, and reclamation for urban and industrial areas.

Global warming
Although scientists are still
debating the causes of global
warming, most studies point to
the significant contribution of
greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC,
2001). While the whole picture of
global warming remains unclear,
investigations into temperature
trends confirm a marked increase
in global temperatures over the
past 100 years.

6
Annual Mean
5-year Mean
4

-2
1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

NASAs Goddard Institute for Space


Source: www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
Studies (GISS) is conducting
research on global temperature
Figure 13: Global annual mean surface temperature anomalies (C)
variations, based upon data
collected by meteorological
stations around the world since
1880 (www.giss.nasa.gov/research/). The data show the absolute mean global surface temperature in 2001 was
14.43C the second warmest global surface temperature in more than a century (Hansen et al 2001, 2002).
An IPCC study has also found that the Earths average surface temperature has risen by approximately 0.6C
(1F) over the last century. The nine warmest years in the last century have all occurred since 1980 (IPCC,
2001a). Increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons
and nitrous oxide are causing a warming of Earths surface temperature known as the greenhouse effect
(Warrick, 1993). Increases in these gas emissions are attributable to human activities, such as the burning of fossil
fuels, CO2 emissions as a result of burning vegetation, the release of household gases and deforestation, as well
as natural phenomena, such as volcanic activity and changes in solar radiation (Kleypas et al, 1999). The recent
IPCC report estimates that the current mean global temperature (approximately 14.4C) will rise by 1C by 2050
and by 2C by 2100. Recent warming of the atmosphere has been greatest over North America and Eurasia,
between the latitudes of 40N and 70N (IPCC, 1997). The predicted consequences of these temperature
increases include rising sea-levels, changing weather patterns, increasing storm activities, an increase in seasurface temperature, and various habitat changes.

Some of the infrared radiation passes through the


atmosphere, and some is absorbed and re-emitted
in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules. The
effect of this is to warm the earth's surface and
the lower atmosphere.
Solar radiation passes
through the clear atmosphere
Most radiation is absorbed by
the earth's surface and warms it

Infrared radiation is emitted


from the earth's surface

Source: www.epa.gov/globalwarming

Figure 14: The Greenhouse Effect


Increasing tropical storm activities
Hurricanes and typhoons are among the most devastating natural disasters, often resulting in the loss of human
life and serious economic damage in coastal zones. The terms hurricane and typhoon are regionally specific
names for a strong tropical cyclone (www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A1.html). Once a cyclone reaches winds
of 17 m/s it is called a tropical storm. Tropical storms are low-pressure systems that originate in tropical and
sub-tropical zones, usually between latitudes 8S and 20S. If winds reach 33 m/s, the definition changes to a

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

27
37

hurricane in the North Atlantic and northeast Pacific, a typhoon in the northwest Pacific, or a severe tropical
cyclone in the southwest Pacific and Indian Ocean (Bengtsson, 2001). The deadliest Atlantic tropical cyclones
account for just over 20% of all tropical storms but cause more than 80% of the damage.
According to the Colorado State University hurricane forecast team, the years 1995 to 2000 experienced the
highest level of North Atlantic hurricane activity, including a 2.5-fold increase in major hurricanes and a fivefold
increase in hurricanes affecting the Caribbean. This high variability of cyclone activities is also attributed to
changes in sea-surface temperature and vertical wind shear (Goldenberg et al, 2001).
The vulnerability of human populations to storm and hurricane activities has risen substantially in recent decades,
primarily because ever-increasing numbers of people live in hurricane-prone coastal areas (Goldenberg et al,
2001). High population densities, infrastructure and property development in coastal areas all contribute to high
economic consequences. Societal vulnerability to storms has worsened as the frequency and intensity of storms
have increased, leading to increased risk of flooding, beach erosion, and the displacement of human
habitation (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/
According to the World Natural Disaster Database developed by OFDA/CRED (2000), the most predominant
global disasters reported between 1991 and 2000 were floods and windstorms (888 and 748, respectively).
During this 10-year period, Asia was the most-affected region. For example, cyclones caused 139,000 deaths
in Bangladesh in 1991 and Hurricane Mitch resulted in 14,600 deaths in Honduras in 1998-99.
Table 8 summarises the worlds major storm incidents and reported casualties over the last century. The 10
countries with the highest probability of experiencing windstorms or tidal wave incidents were the United States
(392), the Philippines (221), China (134), India (121), Australia (121), Bangladesh (120), Japan (107), Vietnam (54),
Mexico (50), and France (37). The spatial distribution shows that tropical coastal areas face the highest risk of
storm-related incidents, and that the majority of these are in developing countries.
Bangladesh suffered by far the greatest human cost of windstorms and tidal wave incidents over the last
century, with more than 600,000 casualties (Table 9). Other severely affected countries were China and India,
which both suffered more than 160,000 deaths.

Table 8: Reported windstorm and tidal wave incident distribution in 10 most affected countries, 1900-99
Country

United States
Philippines
China
India
Australia
Bangladesh
Japan
Vietnam
Mexico
France

% of global storm
and tidal wave
incidents
(world total = 1,356)
28.9 (392)
16.3 (221)
9.9 (134)
8.9 (121)
8.9 (121)
8.8 (120)
7.9 (107)
3.9 (54)
3.7 (50)
2.7 (37)

% of global deaths
resulting from storm/
wave incidents
2.3
2.9
17.2
15.2
0.0
56.9
3.1
1.9
0.5
0.0

% of total population
requiring immediate
assistance during
the disaster period
0.0
23.4
34.5
21.8
1.0
15.4
2.0
0.0
0.6
1.1

Coastal population
2
density per km
(2000)

68
276
563
526
10
1081
351
387
44
107

Source: OFCD/CREDA World Natural Disaster Database, 2000

28
38

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 9: Reported windstorm and wave/tidal surge casualties in 10 most affected countries, 1900-99
Country
Bangladesh
China
India
Japan
Philippines
Honduras
Hong Kong
Vietnam
United States
Haiti

Storm and wave/tidal surge casualties


612,425
169,159
161,889
40,090
31,572
24,544
23,816
19,709
19,620
11,604

Source: OFCD/CREDA World Natural Disaster Database, 2000

In recent years, many coastal areas have witnessed significant increases in storm activities. Unusual storm
surges in Kiribati (1997) and the Marshall Islands (1998) heightened tides and destroyed sea walls, bridges, roads,
houses and plantations. An increase in storm activities in Sri Lanka eroded the southwestern coastline and parts
of a major highway. The occurrence of more frequent and violent storms, particularly in the tropical Pacific, are
due to sub-regional variations of sea-level associated with the El Nio phenomenon (Mitchell et al, 2001).
Research findings on climate change and models suggest that the increasing storm activity of recent years
is closely related to an increase in sea-surface temperature (SST) (Goldenberg et al, 2001). During the past
50 years, SSTs in tropical oceans have witnessed an upward trend, which is likely to influence atmospheric
circulation on a global scale (Kumar et al, 2004). Oceans are the primary energy source for tropical cyclones.
Rainfall variability and anomalies of SST can trigger hurricanes. Warmer SSTs decrease atmospheric stability
(Goldenberg et al, 2001). For example, an SST of over 26.5C is usually considered necessary for tropical
cyclone development (Lindsay, 2001). Extreme storm activity in the Atlantic basin in 1995 was attributed in part
to recent temperature increases in the Atlantic Ocean. However, according to IPCC (2001), it is still unclear
whether changes in the frequency of storms, their location, timing and intensity are directly related to global
warming.
Although there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the El Nio/La Nia oscillation is a result of climate
change, it may play an important role in tropical storm activities. Storm activities in the Atlantic basin were
relatively low during 1971 and 1994, while they doubled between 1990 and 2000. In general, warm El Nio
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomena are characterised by an increase in tropical storms and hurricanes in
the eastern Pacific, and a decrease in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. It is believed that El Nio
suppresses the development of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. La Nia in the equatorial Pacific
favours hurricane formation in the Atlantic, while El Nio tends to increase the number of tropical storms in the
Pacific (www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html). During the El Nio period of the early 1990s, there was a
marked increase in tropical cyclones in the Pacific region, affecting Tuvalu, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Island and
Pacific Polynesia.

Geographical exposure of coastal areas


Much of the land in many coastal communities particularly those small island states that are not volcanic
is characterised as relatively flat, with elevations of less than 50 metres. As Table 10 shows, more than 75% of the
coastal zones of the Bahamas, the Maldives, the Netherlands, the Gambia, Senegal, Bangladesh, Denmark,
Surinam and Germany have elevations of less than 50 metres. People and coastal ecosystems in such lowelevation areas are more exposed to windstorms and/or tidal waves than those further inland at higher elevations.

29
39

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 10: Surface topography and coastline proportions in selected coastal communities
Total
coastal area
(km2)
Bahamas
Maldives
Netherlands
Gambia
Senegal
Bangladesh
Denmark
Surinam
Germany

8,635
2,980
33,364
8,235
69,300
103,800
50,267
47,443
105,017

Coastal
lowland area

% with
elevation

Coastline and
the country

Topography
index

Geographical
exposure

(ie. less than


50m) (km2)
8,635
2,980
33,031
7,988
63,063
90,306
41,219
37,006
79,813

of less than
50m
100
100
99
97
91
87
82
78
76

boundary
index
1.000
1.000
0.305
0.098
0.831
0.120
0.991
0.184
0.398

1.000
1.000
0.990
0.973
0.907
0.870
0.814
0.778
0.762

1.000
1.000
0.648
0.536
0.869
0.495
0.903
0.481
0.580

The geographical exposure of a country is calculated using the average of coastline index and topography
index.
The procedure used in calculating the percentage of flat land used in the topography index is as follows:

Global digital elevation


model (1km resolution)

Digital Elevation Model


for the coastal zone

% of relative flat land


for each country

Countrywide coastal
zones layer

The coastline index is calculated using the following procedure:


Coastline index = (length of the coastline/total length of the country boundary)
Countries with longer coastlines and coastal lowlands are geographically more exposed to environmental
threats such as storms and rising sea-levels than mountainous or landlocked countries. Table 10 shows that
countries such as the Bahamas, the Maldives, Senegal and Denmark are geographically more exposed than
countries such as Bangladesh and Surinam. Bangladesh has a relatively low coastal exposure as it has lengthy
borders with India (4,053km) and Burma (193km) in comparison to its coastline (580km). However, its topography
is primarily coastal lowland (87%) and the population distribution is limited to the coastal zone (Table 10).

Summary: Status of the global coastal zone


This study reveals that 41% of the worlds human population is found in the global coastal zone, composed of
about 7% of the total habitable land area on Earth. Along with small island developing states, countries such as
Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Kingdom have more than 75% of their
populations living in coastal areas. The ratio of people living in coastal areas compared to people living inland
clearly shows that coastal areas are the most densely populated regions in the world. In more than 85% of the
countries studied, human populations are more highly concentrated in coastal areas than in inland areas.
Furthermore, 10 major cities with a combined population of more than 139 million people are also located in
coastal zones. Five of these cities are in Asia (Tokyo, Seoul, Osaka, Calcutta and Bombay) and three are in South
America (Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro). Overall, eight of these 10 cities are in developing countries.

30
40

Global patterns of land cover distribution show that major forest cover types (closed, open and woodland)
constitute about 42% of the land cover in the coastal zone. According to the analysis, Indonesia, Mexico and
Brazil have more than 50% of their coastal zones covered with forests. Many other countries, including China
and India, have relatively low proportions of coastal forest cover as large areas have been cleared for
agricultural use (55% and 47.5%, respectively).

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

The analysis also indicates that 40.7% of the area covered by biodiversity hotspots is located in the coastal zone.
The protection status of these hotspots, expressed as a percentage of each regions protected areas, is high in
developed countries 12.4% in North America and 10.9% in Australia and the Pacific but low in developing
countries 6.7% in South America and just 2.3% in Africa. The global distribution of biodiversity hotspots shows
that 14 of the 23 hotspots in the coastal zone have transboundary status, sharing borders with more than 58
countries. These hotspots are mainly concentrated in Asia, the Caribbean, Africa and South America.
The global distribution of natural disasters, especially windstorms, large waves and tidal surges, shows a greater
likelihood of occurrence in tropical coastal areas. During the last century, there were seven countries with more
than 100 incidents (the United States, China, the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Australia and Japan); four of
these countries are in the developing world. The study further shows a much greater number of casualties in
developing countries, which is a reflection of their limited coping capacities to natural disasters.
According to the 2001 International Federation of Red Cross and Crescent Societies World Disaster Report
(OFDA/CRED), 80% of the people killed by natural disasters were in Asia, where over 256 million people were
affected by these disasters. The average number of people affected each year by disasters rose from 147
million in 1981-90 to 211 million in 1991-2000. This may be related to coastal population increases or increases
in storm-related disasters, or a combination of both. High winds and tropical storms accompanied by flooding
and large waves have devastating impacts, particularly in storm-prone areas in the global coastal zone.
These figures clearly confirm that the worlds coastal regions are facing growing pressures due to their increasing
populations, land cover changes, and high probability of natural disasters. The most affected coastal areas are
located in developing countries. In addressing the need to protect humans and their environments in coastal
zones, it is vital to understand the vulnerability of people and their ecosystems in these areas.

5.4 Impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems

Sea level rise (m)

Current studies indicate that the


1.0
greatest pressures facing the
A1B
coastal zone and its inhabitants are
A1F1
A1T
changing land use and land cover,
A2
0.8
B1
explosive urban growth, threats
B2
to biodiversity hotspots, global
warming, and increasing storm
activities. The impacts of these
0.6
changes include rising sea-levels,
more frequent storms, coral
bleaching and pollution, and
the reduction of biodiversity.
0.4
Accelerated increases in
temperature could raise sea-levels
beyond the capacity of coastal
0.2
ecosystems and human systems to
adapt without major disruption and
cost. A wealth of literature examines
historical and current sea-level
0.0
changes. A composite global
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
mean sea-level change curve over
Source: Climate Change 2001, Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis,
the last century clearly shows the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each of the six lines appearing in
the key is the average of all atmosphere-ocean general circulation models for one
increasing trend (Warrick, 1996).
of the six illustrative scenarios. www.grida.no/climate/ipcc-tar/wg1/553.htm
According to this study, global sealevels have risen by between 10cm
Figure 15: Global average sea-level rise, 1900-2100
and 25cm during the 20th century.
They are expected to accelerate significantly during the 21st century as a result of human-induced climate
change. Moderate estimates suggest a global rise of about 50cm by 2100 (Figure 15). This will have disastrous
effects on densely populated coastal environments around the world.
31
41

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Rising sea-levels may adversely affect coastal areas by exposing or inundating land, in turn affecting water
supplies, agricultural productivity and human migration (Brinkman ,1995). Although much has been written about
the effects on agriculture and erosion, there has been much less focus on the potential effects on settlement
and population (Gommes et al, 1998).
The effects of sea-level rise may vary spatially to a great extent. The most affected areas will be the coastal
areas of Europe and Asia and island nations with extensive coastal lowland areas. The low-lying Dutch, German
and Baltic coasts will be the most seriously affected. With the relatively high density of coastal populations in
Europe (>100 per km2), the relocation of these populations is likely to cause significant social upheaval.

Rising sea-levels and small island developing states


and river deltas
Small island developing states are likely to suffer the most
serious consequences of sea-level rise. In these countries,
climate change and rising sea-levels are already
affecting tourism, water supplies, food, fishing and the
coastline. Many low-lying island states and atolls in the
Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean are
particularly vulnerable because they are primarily coastal
lowlands. Much of the land areas of the Bahamas, Kiribati,
the Maldives and the Marshall Islands do not exceed 3-4
metres above the current mean sea level. With predicted
sea-level rises, the coastline, heritage and community
Figure 16: Vanishing Islands
structure of these islands will all gradually be eroded. The
Maldives, for example, consists of 1,200 islands and atolls,
80% of which is less than 1 metre above sea level. It is expected that Millennium Island, one of the archipelagos
33 major islands, will disappear completely within the next 30-50 years.
The impact of sea-level rise is already evident in many Pacific island nations, which cover about 29 million
square kilometres of ocean and contain some of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth. Although small islands
with volcanic origins, such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Seychelles, Cuba, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica,
have smaller coastal zones and will not be so dramatically affected by rising sea-levels, they will be equally
vulnerable to the impact of increasing tropical storms, coastal erosion and landslides.
Major river deltas and coastal lagoons that have traditionally been favoured sites for human settlement will also
be affected by sea-level rise. The FAO reports that a sea-level increase of 1 metre will adversely impact the lives
of 13 million people in Bangladesh, 72 million in China, and 6 million in Egypt. Other high-risk areas include lowlying coastal lagoons in Angola, Cameroon, Gabon, Gambia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Germany, the
Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine and Japan. A global assessment of people at risk shows that, under a one-metre
sea-level rise scenario, populations living in flood-prone coastal areas will increase from 210 to 260 million, due
to the effects of land shrinkage, inundation, saltwater intrusion, and other impacts associated with rising sealevels (Hoozemans and Hulsburgen 1995). When combined with population growth, the projected population at
risk will increase to 400 million by 2020. A relative vulnerability assessment of global coastal zones indicates that
Southeast Asia, northern and western Europe, and small island developing states in the Indian and Pacific
Oceans and the Caribbean Sea are the areas most vulnerable to sea-level rise (Hoozemans and Hulsburgen,
1995; Titus et al, 1991).

32
42

All these issues will, whether directly or indirectly, continue to affect the quality of life and the sustainability of
human populations and ecosystems in the global coastal zone. Although impacts will vary greatly according to

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Roland Seitre / Still Pictures

Rising sea-levels are also likely to flood low-lying coastal areas, including important habitats such as wetlands
and mangroves. It is estimated that a 50cm rise in sea-levels will destroy up to 50% of the coastal wetlands in
North America (www.princeton.edu/). Wetlands protect the land from the sea and act as a filter to runoff from
the land, mainly from agricultural areas. River deltas with high population densities such as those in North Africa
(on the Nile), West Africa (Niger and Congo), southern Asia (Ganges) and Southeast Asia (Mekong) will all be
adversely affected by rising sea-levels. The effects are also likely to be intensified as these countries do not have
sufficient resources to mitigate their impacts. Rising sea-levels will also increase salinity intrusion into freshwater
aquifers in the coastal zone.

geographical location and levels of socio-economic development, the onus is increasingly upon individual
societies to adopt measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the looming social and
ecological effects of rising sea-levels on their coastal communities.
5.5 Response indicators of coastal and marine ecosystems
Responses to pressures on the coastal zone include the designation of protected areas, the designing of
national policies to minimise human impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems, and the signing of
international conventions and commitments for integrated coastal zone management.
Protected areas
Designated protected areas occupy roughly 10.45% of the global coastal zone. Figure 17 shows the
percentage of protected areas that occupy the coastal zone in each continent. According to these estimates,
the protected areas in the coastal zone are made up of 29% forest, 10% barren land, snow or ice, 8.6%
grassland, 2.1% cleared areas, and 10% wetlands and inland water bodies (www.unep-wcmc.org/). Of these,
forests and tropical rainforests are the most biologically diverse ecosystems, home to thousands of endemic
species (Shi and Singh, 2003).

10.45

World

23.93
10.46

South America

12.61
19.34

North America

32.76
5.59

Europe and Asia

23.41
10.32

Australia and Pacific

48.14
5.57

Africa

8.87
0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

ratio of designated areas in the coastal zone to total coastal zone area.
ration of protected area in coastal zone to total area protected on each continent.

Figure 17: Percentage of protected areas in coastal zones by continent

Integrated Coastal Zone Management


One of the fundamental principles of the 1972 United Nations Stockholm declaration was that states should
adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to their development planning in order to manage
their resources rationally and improve their environment. However, it was only after the UN Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that ICZM showed an impressive growth
in both developed and developing countries. In 1993, 75 countries and organisations were engaged in
217 integrated coastal management efforts at national, regional and international levels. By 2002, this had
increased to 145 countries and organisations engaged in 698 ICZM efforts; www.uhi.umb.edu/b2k/
baseline2000.pdf ). The growing number of countries and ICZM initiatives, together with supporting action plans
developed by UNEPs Regional Seas Programme, show a clear indication that ICZM strategies have been
recognised as practical and appropriate responses to the problems and issues in the coastal zone. This is further
supported by significant investments in coastal and marine projects, particularly since 1992, by agencies such
as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Japan
International Cooperation Agency, the Danish International Development Agency, the Norwegian Agency
for Development Cooperation, and the United States Agency for International Development, as well as the
Netherlands ongoing assistance to vulnerable coastal nations through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Netherlands Climate Change Study Assistance Programme.

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

33
43

These efforts recognise the importance placed by many farsighted developed countries on helping poorer
countries to clean up their acts in the global coastal zone a zone which, after all, affects the health of the
entire planet. As a recent study alarmingly noted, pollution from land-based sources still represents 75-80%
of total marine pollution, with 90% of urban wastes and 70% of industrial wastes discharged into the sea
without treatment in developing countries (Belfiore, 2003).
The need for greater cooperation and collaboration in preserving what is left of our marine and coastal
habitats has pushed integrated coastal zone management up the global agenda in recent years (Kenchington
and Crawford, 1993). The assessment of coastal vulnerability presented in this study is intended as a key
management tool for raising awareness of relative levels of vulnerability in specific coastal areas, and
for coordinating the planning and management of their future protection and adaptation.

34
44

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

6.
Coastal Vulnerability
By virtue of their geographic location, coastal areas offer advantages over inland areas for many human
activities. These advantages have fostered the development of cultures, cities, transportation routes and
political systems in coastal areas throughout the world (Sachs et al, 2001). For much of the past 1,000 years,
people have increasingly exploited the coastal zone, intensifying pressures on the land and modifying the
natural environment. In addition, there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters
in the coastal zone, with major implications for both people and ecosystems.
The Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Zones concept was originally introduced by the IPCCs Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) sub-group in 1991 and is defined as a nations degree of capability to cope with the
consequences of sea-level rise. According to the IPCC-CZM report, an assessment involves three major
aspects:

Susceptibility of coastal areas to physical changes imposed by sea-level rise;

Impacts of physical changes on the socio-economic and ecological coastal system;

Possibilities to prevent or alleviate such impacts by implementing measures.


People and coastal ecosystems can be vulnerable to different threats ecological, financial, environmental
and to different degrees. The main strategies for adaptation to rising sea-levels were identified as Retreating,
Accommodating and Protecting (RAP) (IPCC-CZM, 1990). The results of the IPCCs Vulnerability Assessment
methodology, applied in 43 coastal nations and regions, were reported during the 1993 World Coast
Conference in the Netherlands (IPCC-CZM, 1994). The Global Vulnerability Assessment (GVA) Sea Level Rise
(SLR) presented an overview of 179 coastal nations, focusing on the impact of potential sea-level rises on their
coastal populations, wetlands, rice production and basic protection costs (Hoozeman et al, 1993;
Rijkswaterstaat and Delft, 1993).

Vulnerability in this report is defined as the extent to which a population or an ecosystem is liable to be
affected by a hazard event, and mitigated by the capacity of a population or ecosystem to cope with
these effects.

Human vulnerability depends upon a populations exposure to a hazard, and its capacity to adapt to or
otherwise mitigate its adverse impacts (The National Academy of Sciences, 2001). Coastal vulnerability (CV)
can thus be expressed as a function (f) of exposure to environmental threats, population density and coping
capacity:
CV = f (Exposure to hazard, Population density, Coping capacity)
The conceptual framework in developing a Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) thus involves: (a) the identification
of measurable indicators to represent exposure, population pressure and coping capacity; and (b) the
development of a mathematical model to combine these indicators into a composite CVI.

6.1 Current work on a Coastal Vulnerability Index


Effective coastal management at the state, regional or national level requires the ability to identify areas
with high population densities and housing values that would be adversely affected by increases in storm
frequencies, sea-levels, or coastal erosion rates (Daniels et al, 2001).

45
35

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Most disaster victims live in developing countries, where poverty and population pressures force growing
numbers of people to live in harms way
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1999
International Herald Tribune, October 9, 1999

Although a number of studies and reports have attempted to develop coastal vulnerability indices, the majority
of this work has been focused purely on assessing vulnerability to sea-level rise (Table 11). A 1998 study by the
FAO on agricultural vulnerability to storm-related disasters in developing countries reviewed the impact of
tropical storms on agriculture, land production, forestry and fisheries, and presented a strategy for reducing
agricultural vulnerability to such disasters (www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/003/x9178e.htm).

Table 11: Current work on a Coastal Vulnerability Index


Year
2001

Author or
organisation
FAO

2001

Woods Hole

Inputs used
Tropical storms

Slope, sea-level,

Oceanographic
Institution

vulnerability to
sea-level rise;
U.S. Atlantic
Coast

erosion, tidal
range, wave
height,
geomorphology

Caribbean
Planning for
Adaptation to
Global Climate
Change
Carbon Dioxide
Information
Analysis Centre,
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory

Coastal; a pilot
study involving
Barbados,
Grenada and
Guyana
Coastal; US west
coast

Vulnerability due to
sea-level rise

1999,
2000,
2001

South Pacific
Applied
Geoscience
Commission
(SOPAC)

Environmental
vulnerability

1999

UNDP and Ministry


of Planning and
National
Development,
Rep. of Maldives

Coastal; Maldives
at island and atoll
level

2001

2001

36
46

Focus of
application
Agricultural
vulnerability to
storms
Coastal

Subsidence,
geomorphology,
wave height,
mean elevation,
geology, shoreline
displacement,
tidal range
Population density,
natural resources,
natural disasters,
geographic
isolations,
physical features,
etc.
Based on 12
dimensions with
many
components for
each dimension

Source of
references
www.fao.org/
docrep/meeting/
003/x9178e.htm

Outputs

www.woodshole.
er.usgs.
gov/epubs/
openfiles/
ofr99-593/pages/
cvi.html
www.cpacc.org

Index value
ranking

www.cdiac.esd.
ornl.gov/
epubs/ndp043c/
sec9.htm

Land, forest,
fisheries
assessment

Application
of IPCC
methodology
to produce a
pilot study
Socio-economic
index, Coastal
vulnerability index,
Economic
vulnerability
index

www.cobalt.sopac.
org.fj/
Projects/Evi/EVI%
20Indicator%
20Web/evi_
indicators_list.htm

Environmental
vulnerability
index

Chapter 11:
Maldives and
Vulnerability
Poverty
Assessment

Human
vulnerability
index

Researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Goddard Space Institute developed an Economic
Vulnerability Index that combines a socio-economic index with a coastal vulnerability index for the US coastal
zone. This index evaluates both physical variables (eg. mean wave height, elevation) and economic factors
(eg. population density, housing values), in an effort to determine the relative economic impacts of inundation

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

or coastal erosion. The first index to consider the east, Gulf and west coasts of the United States as an integrated
unit, it addresses two questions: What coastal areas are most at risk, and what would be the relative economic
and social impacts of their losses? ( http://www.ecy.wa.gov/)
The Barbados Programme of Action called for the development of a composite index incorporating the
environmental and economic vulnerability of Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The environmental
component, developed by the South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission (SOPAC), attempts to assess
the vulnerability of the environment to both human and natural hazards, including effects on the physical
and biological aspects of ecosystems, biodiversity, populations or organisms, communities and species
(Kaly et al ,1999). The environmental vulnerability index produced by SOPAC consists of 54 indicators
(cobalt.sopac.org.fj/Projects/Evi/EVI%20Indicator%20Web/evi_indicators_list.htm). The project is in progress,
although database development for each country appears to be a constraint. It is expected that countries
will use the index to determine the vulnerable areas of their individual environments.
In 1998, the UNDP and the Republic of Maldives Ministry of Planning and National Development developed
a composite vulnerability index to assess human vulnerability in the country, using 12 indicators (income and
poverty, education, transport, communication, electricity, health, drinking water, consumer goods, housing,
environment, food security and employment). A weighting scheme was applied for the indicators based upon
their priorities in constructing an overall index.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has developed a coastal vulnerability index to sea-level rise for the
US Atlantic coast. This index uses six physical variables (geomorphology, slope, relative sea-level change, erosion,
new tide range and mean wave height), but does not include a human component ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/
of99-593/pages/cvi.html) (Gornitz et al, 1994; Shaw et al, 1998).
In 1998, Robert Nicholls prepared a technical report on assessing coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise for the
Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change (CPACC) project. Nicholls study examined a
range of issues including changes in sea-level rise and climate change, and methodologies for vulnerability
assessment. The study also provides a good introduction to UNEPs Handbook on methods for climate change
impact assessment and adaptation strategies, although its geographic focus is limited to the Caribbean
(Nicholls, 1998).
As the above table indicates, these studies are more or less limited to a particular geographic region or to
the effects of specific processes such as erosion or sea-level rise. No attempts have been made to assess
global coastal areas as a whole or to develop a vulnerability index for all coastal countries. A global Coastal
Vulnerability Index is clearly important for understanding the current status of vulnerability facing many countries
worldwide. What is needed is a simple yet reliable methodology for assessing the vulnerability of human
populations in coastal areas to environmental threats.
In this study, vulnerability was assessed for 117 countries selected for their different levels of human development
(UNDP, 2001). It is important to develop a vulnerability index that assigns a single index value for each coastal
country and examines the spatial distribution of variations of vulnerability. A single index along with key
vulnerability indicators will help to assess each countrys vulnerability standing and the major contributing
factors, in order to identify and prioritise adaptive response strategies. One major constraint in developing such
an index is the lack of reliable data-sets for evaluating the many and varied dimensions of human vulnerability.
In attempting to develop a comprehensive Coastal Vulnerability Index, this study considered a variety of factors
that put coastal communities in vulnerable situations.

6.2 Vulnerability indicators


People in coastal areas are exposed to a variety of environmental threats, including natural disasters
(windstorms, waves and tidal surges), reduced access to drinking water, endemic diseases, and ecosystem
degradation (erosion, forest excisions, shrinking wetlands, as well as changes in vegetation diversity, soil condition
and water quality). Diseases such as malaria and dengue fever affect huge numbers of people living in tropical
and sub-tropical coastal areas. The impacts of these threats on coastal societies vary widely depending upon
their coping capacities. Coping refers to the manner in which people act within their ranges of resources and
expectations to reduce their vulnerability and the impact of such threats.
37
47

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Due to data constraints and measurement difficulties, exposures to certain environmental threats could not be
assessed by this study. However, an attempt has been made to develop a simple, reliable and measurable
composite index, using the indicators described below.
6.2.1 Exposure indicators

Population density in coastal areas - This is represented by the population density index derived
from the ratio of coastal population to coastal land area. Population density indicates demand
for a variety of resources and services, including land, fresh water and infrastructure.

Probability of natural disaster incidents - This study used data on natural disaster incidents that
occurred in the past 100 years and that signify disaster-prone areas around the world. Although
drought affects many countries, it was omitted from this study in order to give priority to natural
disasters that largely affect coastal areas. These primarily comprise of windstorms (tropical storms,
cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes) and wave surges (including tsunamis and high tides). The study
used the World Natural Disaster database (CRED) to extract the total number of disaster events for
all global coastal countries over the past 100 years.

Percentage of vegetation cover - Vegetation in coastal areas serves to protect human settlements
and coastal environments from extreme storm activities, as well as protecting freshwater sources
and reducing coastal erosion. Low forest cover contributes to low productivity due to soil
degradation and sediment deposits in riverbeds, and also affects water quality. The proportion of
forest cover for each country was obtained using the ratio of forest cover to coastal lands. If coastal
areas have been used extensively for economic activities such as aquaculture, forest and
mangrove areas typically are cleared reducing protection from storms and increasing marine
pollution.

Geographic exposure - The geographic exposure of a country is assessed using the percentage
of flat land (less than 50m) and the proportion of the length of the coastline to the countrys total
boundary. This can be used to assess how relative topographical characteristics affect human
vulnerability. If a country has a longer coastline and the coastal lowlands are densely populated,
people and ecosystems are more exposed to natural disasters than countries with shorter coastlines
and fewer people in coastal lowlands.
6.2.2 Coping capacity indicator
The Human Development Index (HDI) developed by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) appears
to be the best available indicator for measuring coping capacities. It shows the combined effects of life
expectancy at birth, education level and income level. People with high literacy rates, large incomes and
longer life expectancies are generally better informed and have better access to modern infrastructure and
communication.
The HDI considers three data dimensions: healthy life (defined by a countrys average life expectancy),
knowledge (defined by its Gross Enrolment Ratio), and standard of living (defined by its Gross Domestic Product).
A countrys performance is measured by calculating the average of these three indices (UNDP, 2001).
UNDPs Human Development Report provides the latest HDI for each country, expressed as a value between 0
and 1. In this study, it is assumed that there is no difference between the HDI of a countrys coastal areas and its
interior.

Computing vulnerability
A countrys coastal vulnerability is computed using the following equation:
Vulnerability

= f( (PD) + (ND) + (1-FC) + (GE)) - (HD)] [1]

PD
ND
1-FC
GE
HD

=
=
=
=
=

where:

population density
high probability of natural disaster incidents
low forest cover
geographic exposure
human development

38
48

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

High vulnerability, therefore, is equal to high population concentration + high probability of natural disaster
incidents + low forest cover + high geographic exposure the human development level.
Appendix 1 shows the original data collected for population density, natural hazards, forest cover, topography
and human development. The original data are in non-comparable units, and a formula is required to convert
the data into a set of equivalent indices. Accordingly, all indicators were scaled between 0 and 1 using the
following scaling formula:
Index = (X Min)/(Max Min) [2]
i

Where X = data value for X indicator


A value between 0 and 1 shows the contribution of a particular indicator compared to that of other countries.
For example, a value of 0.3 forest cover indicates a very low level of forest cover, while 0.8 shows a relatively
high presence of forest cover among the countries examined. Once scaled, all of the indices were combined
to produce a Coastal Vulnerability Index. All global coastal zones were evaluated and the result was a single
value for each country, assessing its relative status (ie. level of vulnerability) within the region.
Calculation and standardisation of CVI values
Once the CVI was calculated for each country, all of the countries were standardised to bring the values
between 0 and 1. This was done using the following formula and the minimum and maximum CVI values of
the region:
CVI (standardised) = (x min) / (max-min) [4]
The Vulnerability Class in Table 12 was produced by evaluating the distribution of index values across all of the
countries assessed in the CVI. Using mean and standard deviations, countries are ranked as having moderate
vulnerability if they are within 68% of the distribution around the mean ((1 sd) 0.28 (mean) where 1sd = 0.14),
while countries with high and low vulnerabilities are above and below these cut-off points.
In addition to the overall CVI produced for each country, Table 12 also shows a countrys risk factors to
population pressure (population density index and ratio of coastal population and land), natural hazards (storm/
tidal hazard index), lack of forest cover (forest index), and geographic exposure (topography and the ratio of
coastline to country boundary). These data are important in raising awareness of risk and for more in-depth
studies using comprehensive data-sets.

6.3 The most vulnerable coastal countries


The individual risk factors listed in Table 12 were derived from the data presented in Appendix A. The table also
presents the HDI, the ranking of countries in developed, developing and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) for
vulnerability to environmental threats (CVI), and the vulnerability classes.
All developed countries show less than 0.5 (between 0 and 1) CVI values, which is indicative of their high coping
capacities to environmental threats. Among these countries, Denmark and the Netherlands show relatively high
vulnerabilities with 0.478 and 0.459 respectively (Table 12a). High geographic exposure, natural hazards and
population pressures on their coastlines contribute to this risk. However, vulnerability indices for countries with
large land masses and long coastlines such as the U.S., Canada, China and Russia should be evaluated
cautiously. All of these countries comprise diverse regions, and a single vulnerability index value may not
present an accurate picture of their overall vulnerability.

39
49

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 12a Vulnerability in global coastal zones


Country

Developed countries
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Russia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States

Total
killed
and
affected
due to
storm
and tidal
wave
incidents
- index

Population
density
index

Topography
index

Forest
index

Human
development
index
(HDI)

Ratio of
coastal
population
on
and
coastal
land
index

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline

Geographic
exposure

Coastal
Vulnerabilty
Index
(CVI)

Vulnerability
class

0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.108

0.008
0.419
0.002
0.092
0.020
0.098
0.130
0.069
0.000
0.040
0.216
0.160
0.325
0.400
0.011
0.014
0.081
0.107
0.004
0.101
0.026
0.222
0.062

0.227
0.647
0.182
0.814
0.192
0.228
0.762
0.111
0.091
0.135
0.157
0.161
0.142
0.990
0.102
0.033
0.247
0.100
0.344
0.069
0.189
0.189
0.412

0.453
0.090
0.289
0.257
0.815
0.347
0.248
0.378
0.335
0.189
0.004
0.340
0.813
0.116
0.380
0.366
0.620
0.547
0.351
0.478
0.767
0.207
0.476

0.978
0.966
0.983
0.971
0.967
0.974
0.953
0.946
0.932
0.961
0.957
0.966
0.996
0.984
0.966
0.983
0.910
0.899
0.920
0.965
0.987
0.970
0.961

0.191
0.056
0.043
0.041
0.059
0.038
0.020
0.035
0.039
0.031
0.043
0.034
0.040
0.036
0.034
0.045
0.024
0.042
0.020
0.058
0.059
0.038
0.102

1.000
0.045
0.958
0.991
0.300
0.543
0.398
0.918
1.000
0.801
0.212
0.797
1.000
0.305
1.000
0.896
0.150
0.596
0.653
0.721
0.593
0.972
0.623

1.809
2.021
1.854
2.640
0.696
1.546
2.042
1.719
1.756
1.788
1.581
1.778
1.733
2.579
1.733
1.576
0.857
1.257
1.651
1.414
1.040
2.179
1.730

0.271
0.326
0.281
0.478
0.000
0.207
0.335
0.257
0.270
0.270
0.220
0.267
0.248
0.459
0.255
0.213
0.054
0.155
0.247
0.177
0.080
0.364
0.256

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate

50
40

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 12b Vulnerability in global coastal zones


Country

Total
killed
and
affected
due to
storm
and tidal
wave
incidents
- index

Coastal
population
density
index

Developing countries (as per World Bank)


Albania
0.000
0.113
Algeria
0.000
0.191
Angola
0.000
0.021
Argentina
0.028
0.018
Bangladesh
0.835
1.000
Belize
0.001
0.009
Brazil
0.000
0.068
Brunei
0.000
0.050
Bulgaria
0.000
0.061
Cambodia
0.000
0.065
Cameroon
0.000
0.061
Chile
0.001
0.018
China, Peoples
Republic of
1.000
0.520
Colombia
0.001
0.056
Costa Rica
0.009
0.068
Djibouti
0.000
0.029
Ecuador
0.000
0.083
Egypt
0.000
0.130
El Salvador
0.001
0.284
Equatorial Guinea
0.000
0.011
Eritrea
0.000
0.040
Ethiopia
0.000
0.032
French Guiana
0.000
0.002
Gabon
0.000
0.008
Gambia, The
0.000
0.105
Georgia
0.000
0.079
Guatemala
0.001
0.191
Guinea
0.000
0.071
Guyana
0.000
0.006
Honduras
0.021
0.064
India
0.682
0.486
Indonesia
0.001
0.140
Iran, Islam Republic
0.000
0.030
Jordan
0.000
0.143
Kenya
0.000
0.036
Korea, Democratic
Peoples Republic
0.000
0.220
Korea, Republic
0.004
0.469
Kuwait
0.000
0.076
Lebanon
0.000
0.294
Liberia
0.000
0.037
Libya
0.000
0.029
Madagascar
0.037
0.022
Malaysia
0.000
0.080
Mauritania
0.000
0.012
Mexico
0.016
0.039
Morocco
0.000
0.112
Mozambique
0.027
0.043

Topography
index

Forest
index

Human
development
index
(HDI)

Ratio of
coastal
population
on
and
coastal
land
index

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline

Geographic
exposure

Coastal
Vulnerabilty
Index
(CVI)

Vulnerability
class

0.100
0.049
0.075
0.320
0.870
0.547
0.396
0.315
0.041
0.370
0.221
0.049

0.282
0.639
0.374
0.164
0.387
0.855
0.672
0.884
0.396
0.712
0.885
0.298

0.790
0.609
0.304
0.910
0.318
0.776
0.784
0.857
0.772
0.471
0.474
0.931

0.039
0.723
0.102
0.065
0.046
0.039
0.171
0.039
0.033
0.046
0.090
0.037

0.335
0.136
0.235
0.340
0.120
0.428
0.338
0.297
0.164
0.265
0.081
0.906

1.265
0.736
0.958
1.543
3.439
1.130
1.130
0.779
0.870
0.988
0.478
1.675

0.184
0.098
0.228
0.223
0.835
0.154
0.152
0.047
0.091
0.194
0.068
0.250

Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate

0.507
0.278
0.186
0.074
0.104
0.197
0.112
0.001
0.142
0.214
0.378
0.301
0.973
0.115
0.181
0.106
0.613
0.166
0.415
0.307
0.247
0.089
0.272

0.364
0.664
0.626
0.028
0.681
-0.002
0.663
0.877
0.194
0.086
0.971
0.907
0.605
0.806
0.593
0.701
0.946
0.760
0.339
0.622
-0.002
-0.003
0.287

0.716
0.801
0.916
0.447
0.758
0.501
0.651
0.610
0.416
0.282
0.525
0.617
0.398
0.739
0.592
0.162
0.704
0.563
0.439
0.591
0.660
0.752
0.481

0.190
0.078
0.039
0.039
0.076
0.089
0.039
0.027
0.058
0.020
0.054
0.085
0.038
0.044
0.080
0.107
0.082
0.050
0.070
0.056
0.024
0.096
0.027

0.396
0.348
0.669
0.378
0.527
0.479
0.360
0.354
0.579
0.000
0.242
0.258
0.098
0.175
0.192
0.086
0.157
0.350
0.332
0.951
0.310
0.016
0.134

3.059
1.019
1.305
1.453
1.032
1.807
1.094
0.489
1.567
1.159
0.652
0.659
1.571
0.563
0.971
0.561
0.831
0.842
2.575
1.777
1.589
1.251
1.154

0.644
0.120
0.163
0.314
0.134
0.388
0.176
0.037
0.350
0.283
0.098
0.077
0.356
0.023
0.160
0.165
0.098
0.135
0.593
0.359
0.295
0.190
0.232

High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

0.155
0.190
0.183
0.015
0.000
0.209
0.092
0.242
0.733
0.314
0.065
0.338

0.738
0.767
-0.005
0.168
0.810
0.017
0.723
0.714
-0.005
0.503
0.253
0.644

0.789
0.903
0.824
0.735
0.333
0.719
0.440
0.800
0.208
0.876
0.489
0.239

0.049
1.190
0.041
0.039
0.049
0.390
0.032
0.053
0.261
0.032
0.073
0.082

0.599
0.910
0.519
0.331
0.268
0.289
1.000
0.637
0.129
0.682
0.476
0.351

1.236
1.805
1.783
1.472
0.494
1.510
1.429
1.245
1.879
1.549
1.400
1.115

0.177
0.289
0.303
0.248
0.106
0.261
0.310
0.176
0.478
0.232
0.291
0.282

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

51
41

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 12b Vulnerability in global coastal zones (continued)


Country

Total
killed
and
affected
due to
storm
and tidal
wave
incidents
- index

Coastal
population
density
index

Developing countries (as per World Bank)


Myanmar
0.008
0.122
Namibia
0.000
0.000
Nicaragua
0.011
0.049
Nigeria
0.000
0.311
Oman
0.000
0.016
Pakistan
0.008
0.179
Panama
0.000
0.035
Papua New Guinea
0.000
0.011
Peru
0.000
0.069
Philippines
0.651
0.255
Republic of the
Congo
0.000
0.293
Romania
0.000
0.053
Saudi Arabia
0.000
0.034
Senegal
0.000
0.109
Sierra Leone
0.000
0.055
Somalia
0.000
0.020
South Africa
0.003
0.067
Sri Lanka
0.015
0.268
Sudan
0.000
0.010
Suriname
0.000
0.009
Syrian Arab Republic
0.000
0.289
Tanzania, United
Republic
0.000
0.061
Thailand
0.021
0.162
Turkey
0.000
0.127
Ukraine
0.000
0.077
United Arab Emirates
0.000
0.040
Uruguay
0.000
0.030
Venezuela
0.000
0.069
Viet Nam
0.211
0.357
Yemen Arab Republic
0.000
0.065
Zaire/Congo,
Democratic Republic
0.000
0.091

Topography
index

Forest
index

Human
development
index
(HDI)

Ratio of
coastal
population
on
and
coastal
land
index

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline

Geographic
exposure

Coastal
Vulnerabilty
Index
(CVI)

Vulnerability
class

0.424
0.035
0.509
0.233
0.115
0.399
0.197
0.210
0.050
0.215

0.633
-0.005
0.558
0.751
-0.005
-0.004
0.552
0.866
0.131
0.418

0.551
0.404
0.743
0.322
0.535
0.423
0.883
0.471
0.753
0.714

0.077
0.000
0.061
0.105
0.094
0.043
0.039
0.050
0.174
0.042

0.247
0.285
0.425
0.174
0.685
0.134
0.818
0.863
0.204
1.000

1.169
1.325
1.436
0.967
1.821
1.724
1.497
1.218
1.191
2.702

0.219
0.294
0.237
0.226
0.383
0.387
0.218
0.251
0.175
0.556

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High

0.243
0.626
0.415
0.907
0.415
0.162
0.052
0.311
0.089
0.778
0.011

0.906
0.136
-0.005
0.320
0.724
0.374
0.275
0.564
0.004
0.922
0.139

0.502
0.863
0.702
0.274
0.150
0.200
0.731
0.789
0.255
0.758
0.691

1.000
0.020
0.156
0.109
0.034
0.050
0.084
0.039
0.039
0.157
0.165

0.030
0.082
0.373
0.167
0.296
0.564
0.365
1.000
0.100
0.184
0.079

0.660
1.625
1.828
1.864
1.042
1.372
1.212
2.030
1.195
1.050
1.240

0.106
0.254
0.344
0.458
0.286
0.355
0.185
0.372
0.298
0.139
0.202

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

0.160
0.393
0.070
0.438
0.274
0.454
0.320
0.439
0.087

0.578
0.497
0.439
0.136
-0.005
0.098
0.733
0.536
-0.004

0.413
0.783
0.751
0.742
0.782
0.916
0.861
0.608
0.328

0.081
0.063
0.069
0.038
0.058
0.078
0.128
0.066
0.069

0.269
0.398
0.731
0.374
0.603
0.297
0.359
0.426
0.522

0.913
1.477
1.489
1.752
1.922
1.683
1.015
1.896
1.677

0.190
0.238
0.248
0.315
0.347
0.256
0.105
0.384
0.399

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

0.119

0.807

0.294

0.207

0.003

0.407

0.095

Low

42
52

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Table 12c Vulnerability in global coastal zones


Country

Total
killed
and
affected
due to
storm
and tidal
wave
incidents
- index

Coastal
population
density
index

Topography
index

Forest
index

Human
development
index
(HDI)

Ratio of
coastal
population
on
and
coastal
land
index

Small Island Developing States (as per UN Economic and Social Development)
Bahamas
0.000
0.018
1.000
0.577
0.820
0.040
Barbados
0.000
0.425
0.292
0.120
0.864
0.039
Cuba
0.013
0.094
0.513
0.552
0.877
0.038
Cyprus
0.000
0.081
0.153
0.173
0.877
0.039
Dominica
0.001
0.067
0.297
0.940
0.791
0.039
Dominican Republic
0.042
0.163
0.201
0.718
0.699
0.039
Fiji
0.005
0.042
0.187
0.036
0.757
0.039
Haiti
0.024
0.272
0.129
0.463
0.356
0.039
Jamaica
0.007
0.208
0.152
0.788
0.824
0.036
Maldives
0.000
0.937
1.000
0.004
0.143
0.039
Seychelles
0.000
0.176
0.598
0.004
0.791
0.039
Solomon Islands
0.002
0.015
0.118
1.000
0.549
0.039
St Kitts & Nevis
0.000
0.071
0.367
0.754
0.794
0.041
St Lucia
0.001
0.177
0.207
0.898
0.740
0.039
St Vincent &
The Grenadines
0.000
0.202
0.187
0.707
0.746
0.039
Vanuatu
0.001
0.013
0.145
0.546
0.564
0.039

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline

Geographic
exposure

Coastal
Vulnerabilty
Index
(CVI)

Vulnerability
class

1.000
1.000
0.992
1.000
1.000
0.782
1.000
0.831
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

2.440
2.598
2.061
2.061
1.424
1.470
2.199
1.794
1.579
3.934
2.771
1.135
1.684
1.487

0.466
0.494
0.358
0.358
0.223
0.257
0.422
0.421
0.252
1.000
0.554
0.211
0.286
0.251

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

1.000
1.000

1.682
1.613

0.297
0.325

Moderate
Moderate

Among developing countries, Bangladesh, China, India and the Philippines show high levels of vulnerability
(Table 12b). High population densities and geographic exposure, a low proportion of forests in coastal areas,
and a low human development index ranking contribute to their high vulnerability values. This raises the
interesting possibility that countries with high coastal vulnerability may be able to reduce it by opening up inland
areas to urban settlement and development (eg. the United States), or by protecting their coastal areas with
sand bars/islands or constructed dykes (eg. The Netherlands and Denmark).
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) clearly have the highest exposure factors. Their social and economic
development indicators are also relatively higher than many countries in the developing countries category.
Two of the 16 SIDS face a high vulnerability, while all of the remainder face a moderate risk (Table 12c). This
clearly indicates the vulnerable nature of people and ecosystems on small islands, particularly in the Indian
Ocean, the Caribbean and the Pacific, where windstorms and tidal surges are more prevalent.
All SIDS are relatively more vulnerable to environmental threats
than other countries. Some volcanic island states, such as St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Vanuatu and Fiji, have
relatively narrow coastal lowlands and steep hills in the centre
(except the Seychelles). These countries are vulnerable to
environmental threats due to their geographic exposure to
storms and hurricanes, low forest cover and high population
pressure on the coast. According to Table 12c, the Maldives
shows the highest vulnerability of all, with an index value of 1.00.
Other highly vulnerable small island states are the Seychelles,
Barbados, Bahamas, Fiji and Haiti.

Source: http://images.isc.nasa.gov/images/
pao/STS7/10061237.jpg

Figure 18: Maldives space shuttle image

53
43

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

7.
Conclusion
As the worlds coastal population continues to grow, so too do pressures on land, water and other environmental
resources. The consequences of these human pressures are all too evident in the continuing upward trends of
global warming, natural hazards, ecosystem degradation and pollution. Coastal populations and ecosystems
are particularly vulnerable to these threats because of their high degree of exposure.
A reliable assessment of the current status of the global coastal environment is long overdue. The major
constraint to carrying out such an assessment has been the lack of accurate and timely data at the global
level. Recent advances in spatial data gathering and processing techniques such as Satellite Remote Sensing
and Geographic Information Systems have enabled the research community to begin to overcome these
constraints.
The analysis of this study shows that approximately 41% of the global population lives in coastal areas that
constitute about 7% of the total habitable land on Earth. Coastal population densities and the ratios of people
living in coastal and inland areas reveal that more than 85% of developed and developing countries and small
island states have high population concentrations in coastal areas. Eight of the 10 most densely populated cities
are found in coastal areas; six of them are in developing countries and five are in Asia.
The analysis also shows that coastal zones occupy about 19% of the global landmass. This area is also home to
forests, wetlands and biodiversity hotspots covering 41% of the coastal zone. Asia has the lowest forest cover in
the coastal zone (10%), while North America has the highest (32%). While Indonesia and Mexico have retained
more than 30% of their coastal forests, the two most densely populated countries in the world, China and India,
have the most cleared land in coastal zones: 55.16% and 47.52% respectively (Table 5).
According to the analysis, 10.45% of designated protected areas and 24.75% of the area covered by
biodiversity hotspots occur in the global coastal zone. These are fragile ecosystems with some of the worlds
richest biodiversity. Of the 25 most biologically diverse hotspots in the world, 23 lie at least partially in the coastal
zone. It is important to note that 14 of the 23 hotspots are at least partially distributed within the borders of 58
countries a factor that may hinder the proper management of these hotspots.
People who live in coastal areas are relatively more exposed to environmental threats such as storms, tides
and rising sea-levels than those living in inland areas. This study shows that the vulnerability of a community to
environmental threats depends upon both their exposure and their coping capacities. Not all coastal countries
with high population concentrations and a high probability of natural disasters are vulnerable. Some countries
have better infrastructure, communication systems and financial structures that can help to minimise the
impacts of environmental threats. The vulnerability index and the vulnerability class produced for each country
shows its relative standing based upon its individual exposure and coping capacity.
In this study, a countrys exposure was determined using population density, probability of natural disasters, and
geographic exposure. According to the result, population pressures, geographic exposure and the probability
of natural disaster occurrences appear to be the major factors contributing to vulnerability to environmental
threats.
It is evident that a coastal community with a high population density living on relatively flat land with a long
coastline in a natural-disaster-prone area is more exposed to environmental threats than other coastal
communities. However, if the community has a better coping capacity, it can minimise the effects of its
exposure to some extent by reducing its vulnerability. According to the Coastal Vulnerability Index, the top
10 most vulnerable coastal countries are the Maldives, Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, the Seychelles,
Barbados, Mauritania, Denmark and the Bahamas. The Seychelles have a high human development index and
low population density and its low forest cover and high geographic exposure contribute to a high vulnerability
value. Although Denmark also has a high vulnerability due to its geographic exposure and low forest cover, it has
a higher potential to cope with natural disasters due to its high human development and technological
advances.
54
44

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

In order to assess the combined effects of insularity and population, the FAO has developed a vulnerability
index (or VI), which is defined as the product of the Insularity Index and population density (www.fao.org/waicent/
faoinfo/sustdev/Eidirect/Eire0049.htm). Despite the differences in the factors used by the FAO study and by the
Commonwealth Vulnerability Index, which primarily considered the economic forces at work in medium and
low human development SIDS (http://islands.unep.ch/d98-vul.htm ), both of these studies arrived at similar
vulnerability rankings to those produced by this study particularly in the case of small island nations.
With the aim of promoting environmental vulnerability considerations in national development planning and
management, SOPAC has developed an Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI), which also considers the
potential impacts of social and economic systems on countries vulnerability. Table 13 compares the rankings
of the top 12 countries according to the CVI in this study and the EVI of SOPAC. While the number of countries
used in this CVI (117) and the EVI (235) are different, there are some similarities in the order in which the countries
appear.

Table 13 Comparison between this Coastal Vulnerability Index and SOPACs Environmental Vulnerability Index
Coastal Vulnerability Index
Country
Maldives
Bangladesh
China
India
Philippines
Seychelles
Barbados
Mauritania
Denmark
Bahamas
Netherlands
Senegal

Index value
1.000
0.835
0.644
0.593
0.556
0.554
0.494
0.478
0.478
0.466
0.459
0.458

SOPAC Environmental Vulnerability Index


Country
Index value
Maldives
4.21
Barbados
4.14
Philippines
4.07
India
3.85
Netherlands
3.84
Seychelles
3.78
China
3.53
Bangladesh
3.45
Denmark
3.40
Senegal
2.58
Bahamas
2.56
Mauritania
2.07

Vulnerability, in a much broader sense, has been examined in terms of its socio-economic, cultural, physical,
financial and technical impacts. These vulnerabilities can affect many people without respect to their countrys
geographic location. However, coastal countries face particular environmental threats in addition to other forms
of vulnerability because of their close proximity to the sea. Although the index produced in this study was based
only upon specific available data, the information derived for each country can serve as a broader indicator of
threats to people living in similar coastal zones and situations.
These results of this preliminary CVI should be interpreted with caution. The accuracy of currently available
national statistics, particularly for smaller counties and those with longer coastlines, as well as those derived from
coarse resolution global data-sets, pose a serious constraint to this type of analysis. Variations also exist among
different data sources, particularly those derived from digital maps and remote sensing based sources and
those compiled within individual countries.

55
45

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

8.
References
Arthurton, Russell S., 1998. Management of Marine-Related Physical Natural Hazards Affecting Coastal Mega
cities of the Asia-Pacific RegionAwareness and Mitigation. 40 Ocean and Coastal Management 65-85.
BENGTSSON, L., 2001. Hurricane Threats. Science, 293(5529): 440-441.
BELFIORE, S., 2003. The growth of integrated coastal management and the role of indicators in integrated
coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46: 225-234.
BOESCH, D.F., FIELD, J.C. and SCAVIA, D., eds., 2000. The potential consequences of climate variability and
change in coastal areas and marine resources: report of the coastal areas and marine resources sector team.
U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, US Global Change
Research Programme. NOAA Coastal Ocean Programme Decision Analysis Series, No. 21. Silver Spring,
Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Bowen, R.E., Riley, C., 2003. Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management. Ocean and
Coastal Management 46 299-132,.
BRINKMAN, R., 1995. Impact of Climate Change on Coastal Agriculture. In: D. EISMA, ed. Climate Change:
Impact on Coastal Habitation, Lewis Publishers.
BRODIE, J., 1995. Water Quality and Pollution Control. In: K. HOTTA and I. DUTTON, eds. Coastal Management in
the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches. Ballina Quality Plus Printers. 3-18.
BURKE, L., KURA, Y., KASSEM, K., REVENGA, C., SPALDING, M., and CALLISTER, D., 2001. Pilot Analysis of Global
Ecosystems: Coastal Ecosystems. World Resources Institute.
CIESEN (CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATION NETWORK), BALK, D., GOROKHOVICH, Y., LEVY,
M., 2005. Estimation of coastal populations exposed to 26 December 2004 Tsunami. Unpublished Report.
CLIVERD, M., 2003. www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Medialerts/2003/2003100116003.html
COMMITTEE FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, 1998. Population and Environment Linkages:
Oceans (www.csa.com/hottopics/ern/).
DANIELS, R.C., TAMMY, W.B. and GORNITZ, V.M., 1996. A Physical and Socio-Economic Index of Coastal
Vulnerability (www.ecy.wa.gov/); accessed September 28, 2001.
DOC/NOAA/AOML/HRD, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA.
www.aoml.noaa.gov/
ENGELMAN, R., CINCOTTA, B.D., GARDNER-OUTLAW, T. and WISNEWSKI, J., 2000. Population and Natural Resources
at the Turn of the Millennium: People in the Balance. Washington, D.C.: Population Action International.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION, 1995. Forest Resources Assessment 1990: Global Synthesis. FAO
Forestry Paper 114(46). Rome, Italy: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.
GOLDENBERG, S.B., LANDSEA, C.W., MESTAS-NUNEZ, A.M. and GRAY, W.M., 2001. The Recent Increase in Atlantic
Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications. Science, 293(5529): 474-479.
GOMMES, R., DU GUEMY, J., NACHTERGAELE, F. and BRINKMAN, R., 1998. Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on
Populations and Agriculture (www.fao.org/sd/Eldirect/Eire0046.htm); accessed August 13, 2001.
GOREAU, T.J. and HAYES, R.L., 1994. Coral Bleaching and Ocean Hot Spots. Ambio, 23: 176-180.

56
46

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

GORNITZ, V. M., DANIELS, R.C., WHITE, T.W. and BIRDWELL, K.R., 1994. The Development of a Coastal Risk
Assessment Database: Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise in the U.S. Southeast. Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue No. 12: 327-338.
HANSEN, J., RUEDY, R., SATO, M., IMHOFF, M., LAWRENCE, W., EASTERLING, D., PETERSON, T., and KARL, T. 2001.
A Closer Look at United States and Global Surface Temperature Change. J. Geophys. Res. 106: 23947-23963.
HANSEN, J., RUEDY, R., SATA, M. and LO, K., 2002. Global Warming Continues. Science, 295(5553): 275.
HINRICHSEN, D., 1995. Coasts in Crisis. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science
(www.aaas.org/international/).
HODGSON, G., 1999. A Global Assessment of Human Effects on Coral Reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
38: 345-355.
HOOZEMANS, F.M.J., MARCHAND, M. and PENNEKAMP, H.A., 1993. A Global Vulnerability Analysis: Vulnerability
Assessment for Population, Coastal Wetlands and Rice Production on a Global Scale. 2nd edition. Delft
Hydraulics, The Netherlands.
HOOZEMANS, F.M.J. and HULSBURGEN, C.H., 1995. Sea-Level Rise: A Worldwide Assessment of Risk and Protection
Costs. In: D. EISMA, ed. Climate Change: Impact on Coastal Habitation, Lewis Publishers.
Houghton, J.T.,L.G.M Filho. B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. kattenberg, and K. Maskell, 1996. Climate Change 1995:
The Science of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, pp 572, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, GB.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC), 1997. The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An
Assessment of Vulnerability. A Special Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.H. MOSS, R.T.
WATSON and M.C. ZINYOWERA, eds. Cambridge University Press, UK.
IPCC, 2001 (a). Climate Change 2001: Scientific Basis. J.T. HOUGHTON, Y. DING, D.J. GIGGS, M. NOGUER, P.J. VAN
DER LINDEN and D. XIAOSU, eds. Cambridge University Press, UK (www.ipcc.ch/).
IPCC, 2001 (b). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability. JAMES J. MCCARTHY, OSVALDO F.
CANZIANI, NEIL A. LEARY, DAVID J. DOKKEN and KASEY S. WHITE, Cambridge University Press, UK (www.ipcc.ch/).
IPCC-CZM, 1990. Strategies for Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise, November 1990, p.122.
IPCC-CZM, 1991. The Seven Steps to the Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Areas to Sea-Level Rise Guideline
for case studies July 1991. p. 46.
IPCC-CZM, 1994. Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challenges of the 21st Century Conference Report of the
World Coast Conference 1993, April 1994, p.116.
KALY, U., BRIGUGLIO, L., MCLEOD, H., SCHMALL, S., PRATT, C. and PAL, R., 1999. Environmental Vulnerability Index
(EVI) to Summarise National Environmental Vulnerability Profiles. SOPAC Technical Report 275. Fiji: South Pacific
Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC).
KELLEHER, G.C., BLEAKLEY, C. and WELLS, S., 1995. A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas,
Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
KENCHINGTON, R. and CRAWFORD, D., 1993. On the Meaning of Integration in Coastal Zone Management.
Ocean and Coastal Management 21, 109-127.
KLEYPAS, J.A., BUDDEMEIER, R.W., ARCHER, D., GATTUSO, J.P., LANDON, C. and OPDYKE, B.N., 1999. Geochemical
Consequences of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Coral Reefs. Science 284: 118-120.
KRISHNAMOORTHY, R., 1997. Managing Mangroves in India. GIS Asia Pacific, June/July: 26-29.
KUMAR, A.,YANG, F., GODDARD, L. and SCHUBERT, S., 2004. Differing Trends in the Tropical Surface and
Temperatures and Precipitation over Land and Oceans, Journal of Climate, Vol. 17(3): 653-662.

57
47

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

LINDSAY, H.E., 2001. Environmental Hot Topics: Global Population Growth. Bethesda, Maryland: Cambridge
Scientific Abstracts (www.csa.com/hottopics/).
LOVELAND, T.R, REED, B.C., BROWN, J.F., OHLEN, D.O., ZHU, Z., YANG, L. and MERCHANT, J.W., 2000. Development
of a Global Land Cover Characteristics Database and IGBP DISCover from 1-km AVHRR Data. International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 21: 1303-1330.
MALCOLM, J., LIU, C., MILLER, L.B., ALLNUT, T. and HANSEN, L., 2002. Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species
Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. Published by: WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World
Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland.
MYERS, N., MITTERMEIER, R.A., MITTEREIER, C.G., Da-Fonseca, G.A.B. and KENT, J., 2000. Biodiversity Hotspots for
Conservation Priorities. Nature, 403(24): 853- 858.
MITCHELL, W., CHITTLEBOROUGH, J., RONAI, B. and LENNON, G.W., 2000. Sea-level rise in Australia and the Pacific,
The South Pacific Sea-level and Climate Change Newsletter, 5(1), January 2000. www.ntf.flinders.edu.au/TEXT/
CONF/cook2000/papers/billdoc.pdf; accessed 5 September 2001.
MITTERMEIER, R.A., MYERS, N. and MITTERMEIER, C.G., 1999. Hotspots: Earths Biologically Richest and Most
Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Washington, D.C.: CEMEX, Conservation International.
MUNICH REINSURANCE COMPANY (MRC), 1998. World Map of Natural Hazards. Munich, Germany: Munchener
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS), 2001. Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems and Infectious
Diseases. The National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309072786/html/
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), 1998. Population and Development in Coastal
Areas. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NICHOLLS, R., 1998. Coastal vulnerability assessment for sea-level rise: Evaluation and selection of
methodologies for implementation, Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change (CPACC)
project. Technical Report TR98002.
NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAMME, 2000. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change on
Coastal Areas and Marine Resources. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
THE OFFICE OF U.S. FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE/CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DISASTERS
(OFDA/CRED), 2000. International Disaster Database (http://www.em-dat.net/ ).
PILZ, D.J. and TRAUB, D.K.P., 1997. A GIS for Cebu. GIS Asia Pacific, June/July: 20-23.
POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU, 1996. Global Population: The Facts and Future. Washington, D. C.: Population
Reference Bureau (http://www.prb.org/)
RIJKSWATERSTAAT and DELFT, W.L., 1993. Sea-Level Rise A Global Vulnerability Assessment, January 1993, p.184.
SACHS, J.D., MELLINGER, A.D. and GALLUP, J.L., 2001. The Geography of Poverty and Wealth. Scientific American,
284: 71-75.
SHAW, J., TAYLOR, R.B., FORBES, D.L., RUZ, M.H. and SOLOMON, S., 1998. Sensitivity of the Canadian Coast to SeaLevel Rise. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 505.
SHI, H. and SINGH, A., 2003. Status and Interconnections of Selected Environmental Issues in the Global Coastal
Zones. Ambio, Vol. 32(2): 145-152.
SINGH, A., DIEYE, A.M., FINCO, M., CHENOWETH, M.S., FOSNIGHT E.A. and ALLOTEY, A., 1999. Early Warning of
Selected Emerging Environmental Issues in Africa: Change and Correlation from a Geographic Perspective.
Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), pp. 2, 9.
SMALL, S., GORNITZ, V. and COHEN, J.E., 2000. Coastal hazards and the global distribution of human population.
Environmental Geosciences, Vol. 7 (1), 3-12.
58
48

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

SMALL, S. and NICHOLLS, R.J., 2003. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal
Research, Vol. 19 (3), 584-593.
SPALDING, M. D., F. BLASCO and C. D. FIELD, 1997. World Mangrove Atlas. Okinawa, Japan: The International
Society for Mangrove Ecosystems.
SPALDING, M. D. and A. M. GRENFELL, 1997. New Estimates of Global and Regional Coral Reef Areas. Coral
Reefs, 16: 225-227.
SPENCER, T., TELEKI, K.A., BRADSHAW, C. and SPALDING, M.D., 2000. Coral bleaching in the Southern Seychelles
during the 1997-1998 Indian Ocean warm event, Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40 (7): 569-586 Jul 2000.
TITUS, J.G., PARK, R.A., LEATHERMAN, S.P., WEGGEL, J.R., GREENE, M.S., MAUSEL, P.W., BROWN, S., GAUNT, C., TREHAN,
M. and YOHE, G., 1991. Greenhouse Effect and Sea-level Rise: The Cost of Holding Back the Sea. Coastal
Management, 19:171-210.
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION IN CANADA (UNAC), 1991. Protecting the Oceans. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:
United Nations Association in Canada, International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (www.unac.org/).
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP), 2001. Human Development Report 2001. United Nations
Development Programme.
UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS: POPULATION DIVISION. www.un.org/esa/
population/unpop.htm, Accessed 2 March, 2004.
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, 2000. Regional Seas: A Survival Strategy for Our Oceans and
Coasts (www.unep.ch/). UNEP/IUC, UNEP/DEC.
UNITED NATIONS, 1993. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. New York:
United Nations.
VILES, H. and SPENCER, T., 1995. Coastal Problems, Geomorphology, Ecology and Society at the Coast. London:
Edward Arnold.
VITOUSEK P.M., MOONEY, H.A., LUBCHENCO J. and MELILLO, J. M., 1997. Human Domination of Earths Ecosystems.
Science 277: 494-499.
WOLANSKI, E., BOORMAN, L.A., CHICHARO, L., LANGLOIS-SALIOU, E., LARA, R., PLATER, A.J., UNCLES, R.J. and
ZALEWSKI, M., 2004. Ecohydrology as a new tool for sustainable management of estuaries and coastal waters.
Wetlands Ecology and Management, in press.
WARRICK, R.A., OERLEMANS, J., WOODWORTH, P.L., MEIER, M.F. and LE PROVOST, C., 1996. Changes in sea-level,
Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, ed. J.T. HOUGHTON, L.G. MEIRA FILHO and B.A.
CALLANDER. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 359-405.
WATSON, M.C.Z. and MOSS, R.H., 1996. Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate
Change. Scientific-Technical Analyses. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
WATSON R.T., ZINYOWERA, M.C., MOSS, R.H. and DOKKEN, D. J., 2000. The Regional Impacts Climate Change:
An Assessment of Vulnerability. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
WARRICK, R.A., 1993. Climate and Sea-level Change: A Synthesis. In: R.A. WARRICK, E.M. BARROW and T.M.L.
WIGLEY, eds. Climate and Sea-level Change: Observations, Projections and Implications, Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press, 3-21.
WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE (WCMC), 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earths Living
Resources. New York: Chapman and Hall.
WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE (WCMC), 2000. Protected Areas GIS Dataset (CD-ROM).
Cambridge, U.K.: World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (WRI), 2000. World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems. Washington,
D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

59
49

Appendix 1a
Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Developed Countries

Country

Total
land
ha000

Coastal
land
%

Coastal
forest
%

Coastal
topography
(<50.0m)
%

Total killed
and
affected
to storm
and tidal
wave
incident

Total
population
000
2000

Coastal
population
%
2000

Coastal
population
density
2000

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline
%

risk %

Developed countries
Australia
768639.9
Belgium
3054.7
Canada
983400.2
Denmark
4213.8
Finland
33223.1
France
54508.5
Germany
35491.1
Greece
12870.6
Iceland
9940.6
Ireland
6780.4
Israel
2822.3
Italy
29834.1
Japan
36723.3
Netherlands
3455.5
New
Zealand
26354.2
Norway
323895
Poland
31047.2
Portugal
8926.3
Russia
1681414.4
Spain
50296.5
Sweden
44209.7
United
Kingdom
23737.9
United States
940626.9

20.44
61.19
34.83
96.04
41.46
39.32
22.53
85.30
99.86
99.47
91.80
83.17
94.02
95.12

45.57
9.59
29.30
26.11
81.60
35.04
25.25
38.20
33.93
19.38
1.00
34.43
81.39
12.09

23.03
64.9
18.63
81.51
19.58
23.18
76.35
11.52
9.54
13.95
16.07
16.52
14.65
99.01

0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.99
0.01

18838
10257
30679
5274
5179
59061
82688
10597
282
3574
6077
57194
126428
15871

84.86
82.62
38.22
100.00
58.74
38.74
13.69
78.55
100.00
83.93
100.00
75.41
96.08
89.58

10
453
3
100
22
107
142
76
1
44
235
174
352
433

100.00
4.55
95.78
99.08
29.99
54.26
39.75
91.76
100.00
80.09
21.16
79.73
100.00
30.51

99.00
83.47
19.09
77.39
16.49
44.35
56.31

38.36
37.00
62.25
54.97
35.44
48.06
76.84

10.59
3.71
25.07
10.47
34.73
7.33
19.24

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

3760
4465
38727
9788
146196
39801
8898

89.02
95.00
13.46
82.26
9.99
61.87
79.96

13
16
88
117
5
110
29

100.00
89.60
14.97
59.63
65.32
72.13
59.34

96.06
16.99

21.14
47.94

19.26
41.48

0.06
2.76

58336
277825

94.26
39.19

241
68

97.19
62.34

50
60

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Appendix 1b
Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Developing Countries

Country

Total
land
ha000

Coastal
land
%

Coastal
forest
%

Coastal
topography
(<50.0m)
%

Total killed
and
affected
to storm
and tidal
wave
incident

Total
population
000
2000

Coastal
population
%
2000

Coastal
population
density
2000

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline
%

risk %

Developing countries (as per World Bank)


Albania
2857.8
95.70
Algeria
231937
4.60
Angola
125067
11.74
Argentina
277679
14.50
Bangladesh
13564.2
67.01
Belize
2191.8
99.92
Brazil
850063
9.16
Brunei
587.8
99.98
Bulgaria
11085.4
34.06
Cambodia
18181.4
24.28
Cameroon
46798.4
9.76
Chile
73076.3
64.95
China, P Rep
936667
6.06
Colombia
114116
15.50
Costa Rica
5108
99.70
Djibouti
2160.5
100.00
Ecuador
24855.7
34.49
Egypt
98238.7
23.39
El Salvador
2057.5
99.64
Equatorial
Guinea
2677.1
54.76
Eritrea
12066.7
54.58
Ethiopia
113223
2.29
French Guiana
8320.5
41.28
Gabon
26468.1
26.27
Gambia, The
1065.6
74.59
Georgia
6968.3
36.07
Guatemala
10936.1
43.52
Guinea
24533.3
13.50
Guyana
21059.3
26.71
Honduras
11289.8
67.22
India
315441
16.71
Indonesia
188748
69.06
Iran, Islam
Rep
162156
11.25
Jordan
8921.7
15.81
Kenya
58805
8.75
Korea, Dem
P Rep
12144.5
82.39
Korea, Rep
9685.7
95.28
Kuwait
1706.2
94.58
Lebanon
1032.5
99.97
Liberia
9621.5
51.47
Libya
161802
10.05
Madagascar
59247.4
60.19

28.67
64.14
37.73
16.86
39.09
85.57
67.35
88.46
39.91
71.38
88.50
30.18
36.77
66.61
62.80
3.34
68.30
0.44
66.53

10.47
5.31
7.93
32.27
87.06
54.9
39.91
31.85
4.58
37.34
22.45
5.31
50.93
28.12
18.95
7.85
10.83
20.04
11.58

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.72
21.25
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
25.44
0.02
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02

3493
31599
12781
37032
128310
242
169202
326
8306
11207
15129
15211
1276301
38905
3798
687
12646
68119
6319

95.91
69.82
27.15
22.42
76.61
100.00
34.31
100.00
30.16
27.96
20.21
63.43
25.02
28.04
100.00
100.00
61.12
47.76
100.00

123
207
24
21
1081
11
75
55
66
71
67
20
563
62
75
32
90
142
308

33.46
13.59
23.54
34.05
12.02
42.79
33.77
29.70
16.37
26.51
8.05
90.56
39.57
34.82
66.87
37.83
52.67
47.90
36.03

87.74
19.90
9.16
97.04
90.74
60.67
80.69
59.52
70.29
94.65
76.14
34.31
62.39

0.56
14.64
21.74
38.13
30.4
97.31
11.93
18.46
10.98
61.53
17.03
41.73
31.02

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.54
17.36
0.02

452
3850
66175
179
1235
1244
5418
12222
7861
874
6485
1006770
212565

41.26
76.26
1.39
54.28
51.63
73.13
39.92
80.72
32.68
50.95
82.43
27.53
93.27

13
45
35
3
9
114
86
207
78
8
70
526
152

35.45
57.88
0.00
24.22
25.76
9.76
17.50
19.17
8.60
15.71
35.04
33.17
95.08

0.39
0.28
29.16

25.07
9.3
27.58

0.00
0.00
0.00

76429
6330
30340

7.95
34.69
6.70

33
156
40

30.96
1.57
13.36

73.94
76.86
0.10
17.32
81.11
2.33
72.42

15.87
19.34
18.72
1.96
0.47
21.27
9.66

0.01
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94

23913
46883
1966
3289
3256
6387
17395

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
62.41
83.12
51.52

239
508
83
319
41
33
25

59.86
91.02
51.93
33.14
26.76
28.93
100.00

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

61
51

Appendix 1b
Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Developing Countries (continued)

Country

Total
land
ha000

Coastal
land
%

Coastal
forest
%

Coastal
topography
(<50.0m)
%

Total killed
and
affected
to storm
and tidal
wave
incident

Total
population
000
2000

Coastal
population
%
2000

Coastal
population
density
2000

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline
%

risk %

Developing countries (as per World Bank)


Malaysia
32794.9
77.44
Mauritania
104259
5.61
Mexico
195378
37.69
Morocco
40434.9
39.94
Mozambique
78810.5
30.84
Myanmar
66712.6
29.03
Namibia
82529.5
17.00
Nicaragua
12875.9
62.14
Nigeria
91207.1
8.85
Oman
31219.3
46.63
Pakistan
87679.9
10.93
Panama
7437.1
99.04
Papua New
Guinea
45929.1
64.85
Peru
129555
16.88
Philippines
28875.2
94.12
Republic of
the Congo
34300.8
4.45
Romania
23737.9
8.21
Saudi Arabia
195263
13.18
Senegal
19674
31.69
Sierra Leone
7224.4
46.13
Somalia
63489.7
43.13
South Africa
122160
20.15
Sri Lanka
6516.3
99.59
Sudan
250880
2.90
Suriname
14622.9
25.09
Syrian Arab
Rep
18670
16.21
Tanzania, Uni
Rep
94522.3
8.76
Thailand
51486.7
28.40
Turkey
77977.3
39.65
Ukraine
59827.4
20.78
United Arab
Emirates
7826.1
70.86
Uruguay
17801.2
39.97
Venezuela
91408.4
24.27
Viet Nam
32617.4
57.37
Yemen Arab
Rep.
41630.7
36.98
Zaire/Congo,
Dem. Rep.
233815
0.61

71.53
0.10
50.62
25.79
64.57
63.51
0.10
56.05
75.22
0.10
0.17
55.47

24.58
73.4
31.77
6.89
34.08
42.65
3.94
51.18
23.7
11.89
40.18
20.09

0.00
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.69
0.21
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00

22299
2580
98881
28984
19563
49342
1733
4694
128786
2717
156007
2856

100.00
31.48
32.46
68.19
58.82
52.21
3.39
91.09
21.09
100.00
11.94
99.25

88
14
44
122
47
133
1
53
336
19
194
38

63.66
12.94
68.19
47.63
35.08
24.72
28.54
42.50
17.41
68.53
13.38
81.77

86.68
13.66
42.18

21.41
5.44
21.85

0.01
0.00
16.56

4811
25662
75037

80.41
64.19
100.00

13
75
276

86.27
20.41
100.00

90.63
14.09
0.10
32.42
72.57
37.74
27.96
56.60
0.99
92.17

24.7
62.78
41.8
90.76
41.8
16.61
5.61
31.45
9.35
77.91

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.38
0.00
0.00

2982
22505
21661
9495
4866
11530
46257
18821
29823
452

93.12
5.01
45.34
78.18
41.29
53.34
39.11
100.00
2.92
86.71

317
58
38
119
60
22
74
290
12
11

2.98
8.23
37.34
16.75
29.56
56.38
36.53
100.00
9.99
18.44

14.46

1.6

0.00

16126

58.78

313

7.89

58.04
50.01
44.27
14.12

16.44
39.59
7.47
44.04

0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00

33687
60495
65732
50801

16.48
42.56
64.82
20.59

67
176
138
84

26.94
39.83
73.11
37.37

0.10
10.34
73.43
53.86

27.75
45.7
32.3
44.12

0.00
0.00
0.00
5.36

2444
3274
24170
80549

100.00
72.26
69.26
89.86

44
33
75
387

60.32
29.68
35.93
42.61

0.21

9.08

0.00

18118

60.51

71

52.19

80.75

12.32

0.00

51749

2.75

100

0.34

52
62

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Appendix 1c
Data used in Coastal Vulnerability Assessment in Small Island Developing States

Country

Total
land
ha000

Coastal
land
%

Coastal
forest
%

Coastal
topography
(<50.0m)
%

Total killed
and
affected
to storm
and tidal
wave
incident

Total
population
000
2000

Coastal
population
%
2000

Coastal
population
density
2000

Ratio of
the
country
boundary
and the
coastline
%

risk %

Small island developing states


Bahamas
890.5
96.97
Barbados
41.4
98.55
Cuba
10805.1
99.68
Cyprus
899.1
99.77
Dominica
74.7
98.80
Dominican
Rep
4794.5
99.86
Fiji
1833
100.00
Haiti
2660
99.54
Jamaica
1086.7
99.56
Maldives
298
100.00
Seychelles
404
100.00
Solomon Is
2599.6
100.00
St Kitts &
Nevis
25.1
96.02
St Lucia
58.8
98.30
St Vincent
& The
Grenadines
38.01
100.00
Vanuatu
1138.3
100.00

57.97
12.50
55.44
17.83
94.04

100
29.57
51.5
15.73
30

0.00
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.02

302
264
11201
793
81.2

100.00
100.00
98.82
100.00
100.00

20
460
103
88
73

100.00
100.00
99.23
100.00
100.00

71.94
4.13
46.60
78.90
1.00
1.00
99.97

20.51
19.12
13.32
15.55
100
60
12.19

1.06
0.13
0.61
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.05

8495
848
7817
2587
302
77.4
444

100.00
100.00
100.00
94.57
100.00
100.00
100.00

177
46
295
226
1013
192
17

78.16
100.00
83.11
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00

75.52
89.79

37
21.1

0.00
0.01

40.4
154.4

100.00
100.00

78
192

100.00
100.00

70.87
54.85

19.06
14.86

0.00
0.03

114.5
192

100.00
100.00

219
15

100.00
100.00

63
53

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

Special Supplement: The Asian Tsunami, 26 December 2004

The phenomenon known as tsunami (soo-NAH-mee) is a series of travelling ocean waves of extremely long
length usually generated by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. In the deep ocean, tsunami waves
travel at speeds exceeding 800 km per hour (500 miles per hour), with a wave height of only a few centimetres.
Tsunami waves are distinguished from ordinary ocean waves by their great length between crests, often
exceeding 100 km (60 miles) or more in the deep ocean, and by the time between these crests, ranging from
10 minutes to one hour. As they reach the shallow waters of the coast, the waves slow down and the water can
pile up into a wall of destruction 10 metres (30 feet) or more in height. The effect can be amplified where a bay,
harbour or lagoon funnels the wave as it moves inland. Large tsunamis have been known to rise to heights of
30 metres (100 feet). Even a tsunami three to six metres high can be very destructive and cause multiple
deaths and injuries. Tsunamis are a threat to life and property for all communities living near the ocean.
The earthquake and tsunami of 26 December 2004, and the events that followed, will be remembered as
among the worst human tragedies of our time. The loss and devastation caused by this disaster brought
incalculable suffering to millions of people around the Indian Ocean. Their grief is shared around the world,
and their experience is a humbling reminder that we are all vulnerable to the powerful forces of the natural
world that sustains us. From Banda Aceh in Sumatra to the tourist resorts of southern Thailand, the fishing villages
of Sri Lanka, and onwards to the east coast of Africa, communities were overwhelmed by the damage and loss.
If counted in sheer numbers, the challenge of recovering from the earthquake and tsunami appears nearly
insurmountable. An estimated 250,000 lives were lost. Millions of people were displaced and are struggling to
restore their homes and regain their livelihoods. The UN Humanitarian Flash appeal estimated immediate needs
at $1 billion, but the overall damage is thought to exceed $10 billion.
According to a recent UNEP study (After the Tsunami Rapid Environmental Assessment, www.unep.org/tsunami/
reports/TSUNAMI_report_complete.pdf), anecdotal evidence and satellite photography before and after the
disaster appear to corroborate claims that coral reefs, mangrove forests and other coastal vegetation, as well
as peat swamps, provided considerable protection from the effects of the tsunami. Vegetated sand dunes
appear to have provided an excellent first line of defence. The damage to coastal ecosystems is highly
variable, and the damage to coral reefs is mostly due to the impact of debris from the land. Coastlines have
been eroded, with much of the sediment deposited on healthy reefs, agricultural land, in rivers, or even creating
new islands. Shallow soils were also stripped from some low-lying atolls.
Sri Lanka offers some of the best evidence that intact coastal ecosystems, such as coral reefs and healthy sand
dunes, can provide a lifesaving buffer against aggressive waves. For example, most of the Yala and Bundala
national parks were spared because vegetated coastal sand dunes completely stopped the tsunami, which
was only able to enter where the dune line was broken by river outlets. Some of the most severe damage to
Sri Lankas coastline was where mining and damage of coral reefs has been heavy in the past. Similar
observations were made in the province of Phang Nga in Thailand, where mangrove forests and sea-grass
beds significantly mitigated the effects of the tsunami.
Human health and the natural environment are, as always, intrinsically linked. Water and soil have been
contaminated; hazardous debris threatens the health of communities; livelihoods have suffered, or been lost
completely. Although most wildlife appears to have avoided harm, turtle populations have undoubtedly been
affected. Excessive demands have been placed upon a multitude of environmental capacities. It is clear that
the coastal zones of many of these countries will remain vulnerable for a long time yet. Community-based
Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Planning will be fundamental principles in the efforts to rehabilitate
the worst affected regions and to rebuild their human lives.

54
64

Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing a Global Index for Measuring Risk

You might also like