Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
3.
4.
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.
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
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
3i
List of Acronyms
AVHRR
BPOA
CI
Conservation International
CNIE
C-GOOS
COOP
COP
CPACC
CVI
CZM
DEM
DINAS_COAST
Dynamic and Interactive Assessment of National, Regional and Global Vulnerability of Coastal
Zones to Climate Change and Sea-level Rise
DIVA
DPSIR
Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
EEA
ENSO
EPA
EROS
EVI
FAO
GDP
GEF
GIEWS
GIS
GISS
GIWA
GLOBEC
GOOS
GPA
GRID
GVA
HDI
HOTO
ICSU
ICZM
IFRC
IGBP
IOC
IPCC
IUCN
JGOFS
ii4
LMR
LOICZ
MA
MRC
NAS
NDVI
NIMA
NOAA
OFDA/CRED
Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance/Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
OECD
PAGE
PSR
Pressure-State-Response
RAP
RSP
SIDS
SLR
Sea-Level Rise
SOFIA
SOPAC
SST
SURVAS
UNAC
UNCSD
UNDP
UNEP
USGS
VMAPO
WCMC
WMO
WRI
5
iii
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
Foreword
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.
7
v
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
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
viii
10
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
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
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?
2
12
2.
Study Objectives
The main objectives of this study are:
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
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
PAGES: PAST
GLOBAL CHANGES
PRES
200
200
,000
YEA
0 YE
RS A
ARS
ENT
TOD
AY
AGO
GO
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:
Vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change and its consequences;
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.
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
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
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.
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
19
9
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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)
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
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
Coastal zone
Country boundary
Global data
layers
Global coastal
zone
Overlay
coverage
Status of
coatal zone
(see layers below)
Coastal
vulnerability
12
22
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
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
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
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
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.
17
27
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
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 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
28
18
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.
-2
-2
-2
29
19
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).
20
30
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
21
31
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
1.51
33.02
39.98
0.95
15.67
10.26
18.80
54.32
0.69
7.41
Africa
7.63
44.83
39.45
0.00
10.00
Forests
20.00
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
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
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
16.76
35.86
10.88
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
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
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
% 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
Table 7: Percentage distribution of areas of transboundary hotspots within the global coastal zone
Hotspot
Atlantic Forest
California Floristic Province
Caribbean
Indo-Burma
Mediterranean Basin
Mesoamerica
Succulent Karoo
Sundaland
Tropical Andes
Western Ghats & Sri Lanka
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)
Central Chile
Choco-Darien Western Ecuador
Eastern Arc Mountains and
Coastal Forest of Tanzania and Kenya
Guinean Forests of West Africa
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.
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
Source: www.epa.gov/globalwarming
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
28
38
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
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.
29
39
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
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:
Countrywide coastal
zones layer
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).
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.
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.
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
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
23.41
10.32
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.
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
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:
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.
45
35
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).
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
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
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.
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
PD
ND
1-FC
GE
HD
=
=
=
=
=
where:
population density
high probability of natural disaster incidents
low forest cover
geographic exposure
human development
38
48
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
39
49
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
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
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
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
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
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
53
43
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 %
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
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 %
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
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 %
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
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