Adaptation Technologies for Coastal Erosion: A Review

Adaptation technologies for coastalerosion and flooding: a review

&1 Matthew M. Linham MScMetOcean Scientist, EMU Limited, Victory House, Trafalgar Wharf,Portsmouth, UK

&2 Robert J. Nicholls BSc, PhDProfessor of Coastal Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and theEnvironment and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,University of Southampton, UK

1 2

Coastal change can cause a serious threat to the large populations living in coastal areas around the world and in

many situations, appropriate adaptation responses are required. In this paper, the changes, impacts and risks

associated with coastal change, especially due to climate change, are reviewed, and a range of the technical options

available for addressing resulting coastal flooding and erosion are evaluated. These are classified and compared

across three potential adaptation strategies – (1) protect, (2) accommodate and (3) retreat – and considered from

developed and developing country perspectives. It is emphasised that adaptation is an ongoing process which

requires consideration and assessment of all drivers of risk, and monitoring of the risks and opportunities of the

selected risk reduction measures, as well as review of their effectiveness. Further, adaptation needs to be integrated

with wider coastal planning and management.

1. Introduction

Coastal morphological change is an ongoing and natural

process which has occurred through the Earth’s history, due to

changing factors including sediment budget, local wave and

tidal climate and changing relative sea levels. These changes

involve translation of the shoreline and changes in inundation

probability in low-lying areas. In today’s world the con-

sequences of coastal change have become ever more proble-

matic due to the presence of increasing population, buildings,

transport and utility infrastructure and important and

productive ecosystems and their services. As a result, coastal

change has become a hazard with the capacity to cause

significant damage and disruption via erosion and flooding.

Since coastal zones are amongst the most densely populated

and dynamic natural environments on Earth, it is imperative to

consider appropriate adaptation responses for coping with

coastal change.

Adaptation is defined here as an adjustment in natural or human

systems in response to a new or changing environment, as a

means of moderating harm or exploiting beneficial opportu-

nities (following McCarthy et al., 2001). To date, adaptation in

coastal areas has had a widespread benefit in reducing society’s

vulnerability to coastal hazards. Examples include the

Netherlands, where the 1953 storm surge disaster triggered the

creation of the Delta Project, with subsequent shortening and

defence of the Dutch coastline (Van Koningsveld et al., 2008),

and Bangladesh, where the implementation of a national flood

warning service and provision of shelters have significantly

reduced death tolls resulting from recent cyclones (Paul and

Dutt, 2010).

Multiple drivers of coastal morphological change exist. These

operate at a variety of temporal and spatial scales, interacting

to produce the overall form of the coastline (Cowell et al.,

2003; Stive et al., 2002). One such driver is changing sediment

supplies (usually declining); reflecting that catchment manage-

ment and coastal protection are widespread issues, while

equally important is anthropogenic climate change. Such

changes are likely to have far-reaching consequences for the

world’s coastal zones. Even with significant climate mitigation

(i.e., source control of greenhouse gas emissions and hence

global warming), global sea-level rise (SLR) is expected to

continue for hundreds of years as the ocean depths only warm

(and expand) slowly in response to earlier warming. This has

been termed the ‘commitment to SLR’ (Warrick and

Maritime EngineeringVolume 165 Issue MA3

Adaptation technologies for coastalerosion and flooding: a reviewLinham and Nicholls

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Maritime Engineering 165 September 2012 Issue MA3

Pages 95–111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/maen.2011.29

Paper 201129

Received 28/05/2011 Accepted 17/05/2012

Keywords: coastal engineering/floods & floodworks/

infrastructure planning

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

95

Orlemanns, 1990) and in effect this produces a long-term

‘commitment to adaptation’ in coastal areas (Nicholls and

Lowe, 2004). While the exact effects remain unclear, the overall

message appears to be that all things being equal, climate

change will increase flood and erosion problems due to coastal

change (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2007). Both demand an adaptation

response of some kind; growing populations and economies in

the coastal zone reinforce this need.

Historically, management of erosion and flooding has been

reactive and short-term while possible long-term trends have

often not been considered. However, management is increas-

ingly proactive and considerate of longer timescales into the

future. These trends are most noticeable in places such as the

UK and the Netherlands. For instance, shoreline management

planning in the UK now considers up to 100 years into the

future (Defra, 2006), which is consistent with the timescale of

the implications of coastal engineering interventions.

This paper reviews the adaptation process and available

adaptation technologies required to cope with future coastal

change. The main focus of this analysis is the erosion and flood

effects of SLR, but the principle can be applied to all erosion

and flood changes. The technologies discussed can be classified

into three generic adaptation options, as first recognised by

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Coastal Zone

Management Strategy (IPCC CZMS, 1990): (1) protect; (2)

accommodate; and (3) retreat. This paper is written from a

global perspective, but links to current UK practice are also

made.

The paper is structured as follows. It first reviews the drivers of

coastal change: both climate- and non-climate-related. Then

the three generic adaptation approaches are introduced,

followed by the details of a range of more detailed adaptation

approaches. An emphasis is placed on the softer approaches to

protect and on the accommodate and the retreat responses as

these are less understood. The importance of considering

adaptation as part of an ongoing process is demonstrated and

the challenges facing future adaptation worldwide are then

discussed. The paper then concludes.

2. Drivers of coastal changeComposite coastal change is the result of complex interaction

between multiple climate- and non-climate-related drivers.

Among the more certain consequences of coastal change are

increased coastal flooding and erosion; it is upon these changes

that the remainder of this paper focuses.

Non-climate drivers of coastal flooding and erosion include

natural processes such as geological uplift/subsidence. This

may be caused by factors such as glacial isostatic adjustment or

autocompaction of geologically young sediments. Analogous

effects can be observed as a result of anthropogenic ground

fluid withdrawal. This has been observed in many Asian cities

as a result of excessive groundwater withdrawal for example in

Bangkok and Jakarta (e.g. World Bank, 2010) and in other

locations as a result of oil extraction, such as in Maracaibo,

Venezuela.

Natural or human-induced changes in the sediment budget can

also significantly contribute to increased flooding and erosion.

Such changes may be brought about through natural

geomorphological evolution, resulting for example, from

prevailing environmental conditions including wave climate,

meteorology and biogeomorphology. Similarly, the way in

which humans choose to manage the coastline, or associated

catchments, can significantly impact sediment budgets. For

example, sediment supply perturbations can occur as a result of

the defence of soft/eroding shorelines, construction of dams

which reduce downstream sediment supply, or marine aggre-

gate removal, for example through beach mining, historically a

widespread occurrence but now largely confined to developing

countries.

Although non-climate drivers are undoubtedly of high

importance, climate change has the potential to become one

of the most significant drivers of coastal change into the future,

through global SLR, and potential changes in storm tracks,

frequency and intensity as discussed in Table 1.

SLR is one of the most certain consequences of human-induced

climate change and it is this driver which is likely to cause the

most significant coastal changes. For example, rises in relative

sea-level will have impacts, including increased rates of

shoreline erosion (e.g. Bruun, 1962; Stive, 2004) and increases

in the probabilities and depths of extreme sea-level events

(Menendez and Woodworth, 2010). These impacts are likely to

be exacerbated by the anticipated future degradation of coastal

systems such as dunes and marshes which currently serve as

natural coastal defence measures. Furthermore, SLR also has

the capacity to cause ‘coastal squeeze’, whereby natural inland

habitat migration is prevented by the presence of hard coastal

defences.

In addition to SLR, coastal flooding and erosion may be

influenced by other climate-related drivers. Changes in storm

intensity, changes in storm tracks, altered wave conditions and

changes in run-off characteristics all have the capacity to cause

significant increases in coastal flooding and erosion, either

directly or through their effects on coastal geomorphology.

Indirectly, increased seawater carbon dioxide (CO2) concen-

trations and sea surface temperatures may also cause increased

coastal flooding and erosion, primarily through their impacts

on coastal features such as coral reefs and melting sea ice,

respectively.


Adaptation technologies forcoastal erosion and flooding: areviewLinham and Nicholls

96

Considering the apparent importance of coastal flooding and

erosion as drivers of future coastal change, the adaptation

technologies presented in this paper focus on adapting to their

effects. Further impacts of climate change are discussed by the

IPCC (see Nicholls et al. (2007) and the forthcoming IPCC

Fifth Assessment Report, due 2013).

3. Generic adaptation approaches forerosion and flooding

3.1 Adaptation strategies

This paper recognises three basic adaptation approaches: (1)

protect; (2) accommodate; and (3) retreat, as defined below

and illustrated in Figure 1 which shows the three adaptation

approaches in response to SLR. The approaches may be

pursued through the implementation of one or more com-

plementary adaptation technologies, as described in Table 2.

3.1.1 Protect

Defend vulnerable areas, especially population centres, eco-

nomic activities and natural resources. The strategy can be sub-

divided according to the application of hard or soft engineered

solutions (e.g. dykes versus beach nourishment/artificial dunes,

respectively). This approach is relatively well known in coastal

engineering practice and considerable literature is available,

particularly for hard engineered solutions. Soft protection

provides coastal defence by adapting to and supplementing

natural processes, and enhancing natural environments, thus

providing wider benefits to the entire coastal cell. Such

solutions are reversible, providing flexibility and allowing a

wider range of coastal management options to be available to

the next generation. The approach is illustrated in Figure 2;

beach nourishment at a site in New York, USA. Recognition

of the value of soft engineering represents a major shift from

ad-hoc reaction to coastal hazards to the adoption of a more

holistic and proactive approach. The benefits of such an

approach have been recognised in the UK where management

is now based on self-contained coastal cells and accompanying

Shoreline Management Plans (SMP). Protection under the UK

definitions corresponds to the ‘hold-the-line’ and ‘advance-the-

line’ SMP options.

3.1.2 Accommodate

Continue to occupy vulnerable areas but accept the occurrence

of flooding by changing land use, construction methods and/or

improving preparedness. (It is more difficult to accommodate

erosion given its often permanent nature.) Accommodation

can be achieved by making physical changes to an environment

to accommodate increased flooding and erosion, for example,

by raising or flood-proofing buildings. In the UK, while SMPs

Climate change driver (trend) Main physical and ecosystem effects on coastal systems

Sea level (increase with regional variability) Inundation, flood and storm damage; erosion; saltwater intrusion;

rising water tables/impeded drainage; wetland loss (and change)

Storm intensity (increase in many locations with regional

variability)

Increased extreme water levels and wave heights; increased

episodic erosion, storm damage, risk of flooding and defence

failure

Storm frequency and track (uncertain changes with regional

variability)

Altered surges and storm waves and hence risk of storm damage

and flooding

Wave climate (uncertain changes with regional variability) Altered wave conditions, including swell; altered patterns of

erosion and accretion; re-orientation of beach plan form.

Carbon dioxide concentration (increase) Increased carbon dioxide fertilisation; ocean acidification negatively

impacting coral reefs and other pH sensitive organisms

Sea surface temperature (increase with regional variability) Increased stratification/changed circulation; reduced incidence of

sea ice at higher latitudes; increased coral bleaching and mortality;

pole-ward species migration; increased algal blooms

Run-off (regional variability with catchment management

being a significant additional control)

Altered flood risk in coastal lowlands; altered water quality/salinity;

altered fluvial sediment supply; altered circulation and nutrient

supply

Table 1. Main climate drivers of coastal change, their trends due to

climate change and their main physical and ecosystem effects

(adapted from: Nicholls et al. (2007))



97

do not explicitly recognise accommodation, there is increasing

interest in flood-proofing buildings and ‘floodwise’ construc-

tion consistent with this approach. In the USA, the National

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires that all new homes

are built above the 100 year flood elevation if a community

wishes to benefit from flood insurance. Figure 3 shows

flood-proofing measures on a home in Florida, USA as part

of the NFIP.

3.1.3 (Planned) retreat

Abandon existing buildings, resettle inhabitants and require that

new developments be set back from the shore as appropriate in

order to reduce the risk of erosion or flood events by limiting

their potential effects. Unplanned retreat has been the norm in

the UK for many years, for example, in areas with low levels of

development on eroding cliffs. Planned retreat is presently

considered more novel, although its application is likely to

increase in the future. In the UK the approach is being promoted

by shoreline management (Defra, 2006; Leafe et al., 1998) where

it corresponds to the ‘managed realignment’ and sometimes

the ‘limited intervention’ options. The managed realignment

approach is illustrated in Figure 4 at a site on the UK’s east

coast. Planned retreat may be achieved by preventing develop-

ment in coastal zones via zoning, allowing development to go

Protect coastal development(e.g. seawalls, dykes, beach

nourishment, sand dunes, surge barriers, land claim)

Create wetland habitats in situ by sand/mud nourishment

and vegetation planting

Cro

psW

etla

nds

Bui

lt en

viro

nmen

t

Protect agricultural land (e.g. seawalls, dykes, beach nourishment,

sand dunes, surge barriers, land claim)

Switch to floating agriculture, salt-tolerant agriculture

or aquaculture

Abandon agricultural production (e.g. managed realignment,

coastal setbacks)

Strike balance between preservation and development

(e.g. wetland restoration)

Allow wetland migration (e.g. managed realignment,

coastal setbacks)

Regulate building development and increase awareness of hazards (e.g. flood-proofing)

Establish building setback codes (e.g. managed realignment,

coastal setbacks)

Current sea level

AccommodateProtect Retreat

Figure 1. Schematic illustrations of the protect, accommodate and

(planned) retreat adaptation responses for different settings, taking

SLR as the coastal change driver. The dashed line represents future

sea level and lighter shades indicate locations prior to relocation or

natural migration. For wetlands, accommodation and retreat have

similar outcomes (adapted from Linham and Nicholls (2010))



98

ahead on the proviso that it will be abandoned if necessary, or

may have no further government role other than through the

withdrawal of subsidies and provision of information about

associated risks. As noted later, the potential of political

resistance to retreat should be considered as this can be a major

barrier to this approach.

Despite the wide use of the tripartite typology suggested here,

alternative categorisations of the available options exist. The

linkages between a number of these typologies are illustrated in

Figure 5. It can be seen from this figure that by improving the

information available to decision-makers, all measures can be

facilitated in different ways. Information measures are defined

here as a means to achieve this by enhancing understanding and

awareness of coastal risks and thus enabling coastal populations

to undertake appropriate responses to minimise the effects of

these events. Actions as part of this approach may include

implementation of dedicated data collection programmes, as

discussed later, or employment of measures, such as flood

hazard mapping, flood warning systems, education, engage-

ment, capacity building, institutional arrangements and policy

and strategy initiatives. To date, such approaches have been less

widely used.

Figure 5 also shows that reversing maladaptive trends is a

cross-cutting theme which enhances the effectiveness of all

adaptation approaches. Here, this refers to a response to stop

inappropriate or damaging activities; for example, prohibiting

redevelopment of flood-damaged properties. As illustrated by

Figure 5, both information measures and reversing maladap-

tive trends are likely to have wider application under protect,

accommodate and retreat options.

Adaptation approach Technology Primary purpose Secondary purpose

Hard protection Seawall/revetments Erosion reduction Flood reduction

Sea dyke Flood reduction Erosion reduction

Groynes Erosion reduction

Detached breakwaters Erosion reduction

Storm surge barrier/closure dam Flood reduction

Land claim/raise land areas Creation of new land areas Flood and erosion reduction

Soft protection Beach nourishment Erosion reduction Flood reduction

Dune construction Erosion reduction

Flood reduction

Creation of new habitats*

Accommodate Flood-proofing Avoid/reduce flood impacts

Wetland restoration Flood reduction

Erosion reduction

Creation of new habitats

Floating agriculture Efficient utilisation of flooded areas

Saline-resistant crops Efficient utilisation of flooded areas

Coastal aquaculture Efficient utilisation of flooded areas

Enhanced drainage systems Flood reduction

Retreat Managed realignment Flood reduction

Erosion reduction

Creation of new habitats*

Coastal setbacks Reduce exposure to flooding and

erosion

Information measures Flood hazard mapping Reduce impact of coastal flooding

Flood warnings Reduce exposure to flooding

*Creation of new habitats could be a primary or secondary purpose depending on project objectives.

Table 2. Commonly applied coastal adaptation technologies and

their primary and secondary purpose in erosion and flood

management



99

The three approaches outlined in this paper are important

when considering adaptation for both new and existing

developments. However, it should be noted that application

of retreat and accommodate approaches have greater scope

when incorporated within the design of new developments.

Furthermore, accommodate and retreat measures require

proactive planning and application to give future benefits,

while protection can be implemented in a reactive manner.

When considering that the benefits of proactive adaptation are

greater, and the costs lower, when compared with reactive

actions, proactive adaptation is clearly preferable. Considering

both this aspect and uncertainty over future coastal change,

appropriate allowance for uncertainty at the design stage will

serve to ensure that adaptations are sufficiently robust to

withstand actual change, without the need for often difficult and

expensive modifications. An alternative approach is to try and

shorten decision timescales and only plan for 20 year windows,

recognising that there will be five cycles of response over the next

century (cf. Hallegatte, 2009). The advantage is that we are more

confident of future conditions in 20 years than in 100 years. The

disadvantage is the need for continual upgrade and revision of

responses, but this may be less important if adaptation is seen as

an ongoing process (as discussed later).

Following implementation, adaptation approaches can be

adjusted over time as conditions change and our understanding

of coastal change improves. Conscious changes in the adaptation

approach may be brought about by factors including gradual

environmental changes, such as more frequent flooding, or

changes in human preferences, for example by placing a greater

emphasis on retaining natural features; this has been expressed in

the UK and EU in the last few decades by the Habitats Directive.

Such changes may occur gradually as environments steadily

change or more suddenly in response to extreme events.

The shift in management approach from protect to retreat at

managed realignment sites such as Abbotts Hall Farm in Essex

can be viewed as a gradual policy change in response to

evolving needs and an improved understanding of coastal

processes. This scheme was implemented in response to a need

for intertidal and coastal habitat creation and reductions in

seawall maintenance costs, as well as for improved flood

defence. The project was proactively instigated following a

Figure 2. Beach nourishment by the US Army Corps of Engineers

at Rockaway Park, New York; the recharged beach is greatly

increased in width in comparison to the adjacent beach which has

not been nourished (source: USACE Digital Visual Library, 1999)

Figure 3. Flood-proofing measures on a home in Florida, USA. The

structure survived Hurricane Ivan in 2004 thanks to flood-proofing

measures including elevation above the base flood level and

breakaway wall sections on the lower floor which minimise

hydrodynamic loading during flooding (source: FEMA Photo

Library, 2004)

Figure 4. Managed realignment on the UK’s east coast. This photo

shows Allfleet’s Marsh (Wallasea Island, Essex, UK) during

breaching (2006). Image provided courtesy of the Biodiversity

Programme, Defra



100

Adaptation approach

Coastal adaptation

(IPCC CZMZ, 1990)

Adaptation objectives(Klein and Tol, 1997) Hallegatte (2009)

Shoreline management (Defra, 2006)

Adaptation technologies highlighted in this paper

Protect

Accommodate

Retreat

Information measures

Soft strategies - Flood hazard mapping(Flood-proofing)

(Flood hazard mapping)- Flood warnings

- Monitoring

- Coastal setbacks- Managed realignment

- N/A

- Flood-proofing

- Detached breakwaters

Impr

ovin

g aw

aren

ess

and

prep

ared

ness

Rev

ersi

ng m

alad

aptiv

e tre

nds

- Wetland restoration

- Enhanced drainage systems

- Aquaculture- Saline-resistant crops- Floating agriculture

- Beach nourishment

- Land claimAdvance the

existing defence line

Hold the existing

defence line

No-regretstrategies andsafety margin

strategies

Increased robustness

Increasedflexibility Reversible strategies

Strategies that reduce decision-making

time horizons

Enhanced adaptability

Managed realignment

No active intervention

- Artificial sand dunes- Seawalls- Sea dykes- Storm surge barriers and closure dams- Groynes

Figure 5. Linkages between the adaptation technologies discussed

in this paper and other typologies of coastal adaptation (adapted

from Linham and Nicholls (2010)). Improving awareness and

preparedness and reversing maladaptive trends are cross-cutting

themes which are relevant to varying degrees to all the

technologies considered in this paper. Shoreline management does

not explicitly consider accommodation, but other measures being

used in the UK draw on this approach. In terms of the adaptation

measures considered in this paper, monitoring is universal



101

prolonged period of monitoring which aimed to ensure that the

scheme design achieved the desired results.

Conversely, significant events often lead to sudden, catalytic

policy change. For example, the 1953 North Sea floods in

Eastern England and 2010’s winter storm Xynthia in France

caused 307 and 47 deaths, respectively. These unexpected and

shocking events had the effect of accelerating policy initiatives

and responses for dealing with coastal flooding in the

immediate aftermath (Lumbroso and Vinet, 2011). Such

initiatives took the form of improvements to forecasting and

warning services, investments to improve, strengthen and

increase coastal flood defences, and attempts to increase

understanding and risk awareness.

Soft engineering and accommodate and retreat measures have

been applied worldwide in developed and developing country

contexts, albeit frequently using locally available technologies

which therefore vary greatly between projects. For example,

flood-proofing measures are implemented in the USA as part of

the NFIP, while mangrove afforestation has taken place in

Bangladesh as part of regional wetland restoration projects.

Information measures have also been hugely important in

saving lives and reducing property damage in countries

including the UK, USA and Bangladesh through flood warning

systems, coupled with emergency planning procedures. Despite

this, during winter storm Xynthia when extreme sea levels were

well forecast, a flood warning was not issued, as there was

insufficient understanding of how defences would respond or

where might be affected; consequently 47 people died. Despite

successful technology transfer in some areas, other accommo-

date and retreat technologies have yet to transfer between

developed and developing countries. For example, to the

authors’ knowledge, managed realignment has to date, only

been applied in developed country contexts (Western Europe

and USA). In other areas where it could be implemented, such as

East Asia, the notion of retreat and relinquishing land is not

seriously considered at present, and further land claim would

seem a more likely management approach.

3.2 The process of coastal adaptation

While implementation of an adaptation measure, or portfolio

of measures, is important, this is only one aspect of successful

adaptation. Rather, coastal adaptation is best regarded as a

multi-stage and iterative process to: (1) prioritise risks and

opportunities; (2) implement risk reduction measures; and (3)

operate, monitor and review the chosen approach (Figure 6).

This reflects the need for proactive adaptation with continuous

monitoring and adjustments, if needed, as discussed earlier.

The appropriateness of such an approach has been demon-

strated in countries with long coastal engineering histories,

such as the UK, the Netherlands and Japan.

Figure 6 illustrates the ongoing nature of adaptation as a

process rather than an endpoint in itself, with review and

monitoring being the preferred state. By recognising and

implementing this framework, decision-makers should be able

to more effectively identify the most appropriate course of

Decision supportInformation

UnderstandingSkills

EmpowermentMethods

Tools

Continuous improvementIndicatorsMonitoring

ReviewStrengthen

Enabling environmentMainstreaming

Policy instrumentsStakeholder engagement

Knowledge and skillsTechnologiesInstitutions

Adaptation

Prioritise risks and opportunities

Implement risk reduction

Operation, monitoring and review

Figure 6. The adaptation cycle – a conceptual framework for

implementing coastal adaptation measures which stresses the

ongoing nature of the process (adapted from Hay (2009))



102

action and to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the

implemented technologies, as new insights and knowledge

arise, and also as societal aims and objectives evolve.

Prioritisation of risks and opportunities requires decision-

makers to develop an understanding of potential coastal

change and its effects on the region and place this in a wider

context of other drivers of change, development pressures and

priorities (cf. Tompkins et al., 2005). This in turn, informs

whether the protect, accommodate or retreat approach seems

most appropriate and more specifically, what technologies

could be used to achieve this. This step can be optimised

through the use of the most relevant, accurate and up-to-date

information to help select the most appropriate adaptation

interventions. To achieve this most effectively, there is a

requirement for a multi-disciplinary approach to coastal

planning.

Implementation entails application of one or more comple-

mentary technologies. In doing so, decision-makers should aim

to fully engage stakeholders so as to break down key barriers

which can prove significant stumbling blocks for the imple-

mentation of effective adaptation technologies. It is therefore

important to evaluate every situation on its particular merits,

in order to work most effectively with local conditions and

needs. The UK’s localism bill represents an attempt to engage

individuals and communities in broader scale strategies such as

coastal planning.

Once adaptive technologies have been implemented, the

process moves into an operational and monitoring/review

phase (e.g. Bradbury et al., 2002). This includes ongoing

observation and evaluation to assess whether the adaptation

measures have achieved their goals. Evaluation is likely to yield

new insights and information which can give rise to adjust-

ments in the technology or strategy as appropriate. This step

should also include periodic reviews of actual and predicted

flood and/or erosion risks in light of improving knowledge.

This will inform the need to adjust the adaptation approach as

we learn more, including considering specific impacts of

climate change.

4. Adaptation technologies for coastalerosion and flooding

For effective adaptation, decision-makers must have an

understanding of the range of adaptation technologies avail-

able. This will guide selection of those most appropriate for

specific situations. Table 2 introduces a number of distinct and

widely used options.

Although attempts to resist coastal change through the

implementation of hard-engineered, structural solutions have

historically been widely applied, this special issue focuses on

the adaptation options of soft engineering, accommodate and

retreat which remain less understood. As outlined in Table 2

this may include solutions such as flood-proofing, wetland

restoration, managed realignment and coastal setbacks, to

name but a few.

4.1 Advantages and disadvantages of the proposed

approaches

Soft engineering provides tangible protection to coastal

communities by adapting to and supplementing natural

processes, whilst providing wider benefits such as enhanced

habitats, better aesthetics and improved ecosystem services.

The disadvantage of such an approach is the requirement for

significant (and often sustained) investment in monitoring,

maintenance and re-nourishment which, in many cases

necessitates the ongoing involvement of engineers, planners

and designers amongst others. This is particularly the case for

beach nourishment.

One of the main associated benefits of the accommodation

approach is that it helps to reduce the impacts of coastal

change with minimal social disruption; for example, the

need for demolition or relocation of structures is avoided.

Furthermore, many basic accommodate measures are highly

affordable, for example, at its simplest, flood-proofing involves

moving valuable objects to higher ground which can be

achieved at negligible cost. In addition, such measures have

no additional land requirements, in contrast to protect and

retreat approaches. Unfortunately, this approach is limited by

its setting. For example, accommodate measures are not

appropriate for dense urban areas with extensive existing

development.

The main benefit of retreat approaches is that establishment of

a protective ‘buffer’ area at the coastline greatly reduces or

avoids the cost of installing and maintaining protective

measures, as well as reducing reliance upon these measures.

Furthermore, such approaches maintain the natural appear-

ance and function of the coastline, thus preserving natural

shoreline dynamics and contributing significantly to the

sustainable management of coastal systems. Basic retreat

measures can be low cost and can complement and strengthen

other adaptation options; for example, by preventing develop-

ment in areas identified as ‘‘at-risk’’ by flood hazard mapping,

or by realigning defences landward in order to harness the

coastal protection benefits of intertidal habitats (e.g. Doody,

2008). The most significant drawback of the approach

however, is that it requires surrender of coastal lands to

natural processes which can be of significant social and

political controversy. The principle of public benefit from

private loss is also difficult to reconcile. Both issues could be

reduced however, by educating communities to the benefits of

such schemes and sharing of the public benefits i.e. public



103

compensation of some type to the losers under retreat. In the

UK, resistance to the notion of ‘‘compensation’’ has been a

significant barrier to the implementation of planned retreat.

Information measures are considered here as complementary

instruments, applicable to all three adaptation approaches. The

main benefit of such measures is that they raise hazard

awareness, encouraging those at risk to take appropriate action

and helping to focus important resources in those areas most at

risk. The drawback of such measures is that they do not

themselves reduce flood/erosion risk, but rather increase our

understanding and awareness of these risks. As a result,

additional investment is required in emergency response and

planning.

4.2 Selection of effective technologies

Selection of specific adaptation technologies should be under-

taken on a case-by-case basis, which accounts for, and works

effectively with, local conditions and acts to service the social

and physical requirements of stakeholders. Successful adapta-

tion is likely to combine complementary adaptation measures.

This will provide both a more robust response which capitalises

on synergies and, a more reliable response which attempts to

address residual risk. Implementing a portfolio of responses is

expected to aid achievement of multiple goals and is also likely

to hedge against the uncertainty of coastal change (e.g.

Hallegatte, 2009).

It must be borne in mind that each technology has a distinct set

of advantages, disadvantages, knowledge requirements, insti-

tutional and organisational requirements and barriers to

implementation which dictate the suitability of a specific

technology within a certain context. Nonetheless, many of

these aspects are common across adaptation technologies; here

we highlight some of these generic characteristics, building on

Linham and Nicholls (2010).

Knowledge and monitoring requirements for the effective

implementation and review of adaptation technologies recur

across the technologies discussed (Tables 3 and 4). As such,

capacity building of these skills and capabilities is highly

beneficial for coastal adaptation worldwide. Areas with limited

capacity to obtain the information outlined in Tables 3 and 4

should consider how capacity can be built as part of an

effective adaptation strategy, for example by facilitating the

set-up of monitoring networks.

In many situations globally, the required information is poorly

developed or unavailable, making the selection and design of

appropriate measures problematic. This is especially so in

many developing countries. Some data may be available from

global and regional data repositories. For example, global SLR

scenarios are available from IPCC studies while regionalised

projections are frequently available through academic or

government-funded projects such as UKCP09 in the UK,

and generic methods to create SLR scenarios outlined by

Nicholls et al. (2011). Meanwhile, global wave climate and

meteorology may be derived from databases such as the World

Wave Atlas. Nevertheless, local adaptation measures will

generally require more detailed information than these large-

scale datasets can provide. Over time, such data deficiencies

may be rectified by dedicated, local data collection pro-

grammes, such as the UK’s Strategic Regional Coastal

Monitoring Programmes (e.g. Bradbury, 2009), or through

extrapolation and/or modelling exercises. As such, it is

fundamental to recognise that developing and sustaining the

capacity for data collection, information development and

archiving will promote appropriate adaptation.

Given the frequent lack of knowledge, and deficiencies in

monitoring capabilities, the availability of adaptation technol-

ogies which require more limited technical expertise may be

beneficial. Such technologies are more frequent under the

accommodate and retreat approaches. For example, the

application of coastal setbacks and simple flood-proofing can

provide benefits even with limited technical know-how and

thus, constitute useful adaptation technologies in locations

where knowledge and funding is limited. Nonetheless, all

measures can be improved through the use of detailed, relevant

and up-to-date information.

There is widespread interest in community level adaptation to

problems such as coastal change: the interest in localism in the

UK reflects this trend (e.g. Johnston and Wilkes, (2011)).

Although some of the measures in Table 2 might be applied at

the community level (e.g. building setbacks), for some

approaches (e.g. storm surge barriers) the technical demands

of design make this infeasible. More generally, the design of

any adaptation measure will benefit from expert technical

input and advice. Individual communities will generally lack

the science and technology base to determine whether measures

are appropriate and whether design standards are acceptable.

In such instances, it is important to note that the provision of

poorly designed adaptation measures can in fact exacerbate

coastal problems. Poorly designed adaptation measures,

especially protection, may also instil a false sense of security,

thus encouraging development in risky locations and necessi-

tating continued investment in protection measures.

Furthermore, many available technologies can have adverse

social, economic or environmental consequences, even when

diligently executed (UNFCCC, 1999). In many cases, the

provision of basic design guidance for community-level

projects would significantly improve application.

Similar to knowledge and monitoring requirements, barriers to

the implementation of these technologies are also recurrent



104

Table 3. Essential and secondary knowledge requirements for

selected adaptation technologies which are listed in Table 2

(source: Linham and Nicholls (2010)) (continued on next page)



105

among the technologies listed. A number of the most

significant and recurring barriers identified by previous studies

are summarised in Table 5.

4.3 A framework for implementing adaptation

measures

Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is a framework

which endeavours to integrate all relevant policy areas, sectors

and levels of administration for terrestrial and marine manage-

ment, across geographical and political boundaries. Here, it is

recommended as a framework for the implementation of

successful adaptations, in line with previous guidance (e.g.

Bijlsma et al., 1996; Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998; Kay and

Alder, 2005; Klein et al., 2001). The logic behind this

recommendation lies in the shared philosophies of ICZM and

the adaptation process proposed in this paper.

Both ICZM and adaptation as described here recognise coastal

decision-making as a non-linear process, requiring considera-

tion of the full cycle of information collection, planning

decision-making, management, monitoring and review, as

illustrated in Figure 6. Furthermore, both processes recognise

the need for engagement of the widest possible range of

stakeholders in a bid to assess local needs and educate and

engage local communities. Not only does this encourage

stakeholder ownership, but it encourages a more open-minded

decision-making process which considers the full range of

available options, thus supporting selection of the most

appropriate response(s).

Moreover, ICZM should also provide additional benefits for

adaptation. For example, by considering multiple objectives

such as environmental, economic and societal aspects, it is

hoped that resource-use conflicts can be minimised and short-

and long-term objectives balanced.

5. DiscussionCoastal change is a contemporary concern which affects an

ever-growing population and asset base. Into the future,

climate change is expected to be a significant driver of coastal

change, with SLR, possible increased storm intensities, and

changes to storm tracks and wave climates all likely to cause

significant changes to coastal flood and erosion risk (Nicholls

et al., 2007). These will be exacerbated by globally important

non-climate drivers such as sediment starvation due to dams,

and human-induced subsidence of susceptible soils due to

drainage and/or ground fluid extraction (Nicholls, 2010).

Adaptation is essential to enable coastal communities to reduce

the detrimental impacts of coastal change and allow continued

occupancy of the coastal zone. This paper has reviewed a

number of the most widely applied coastal adaptation

measures to date within the protect, accommodate and retreat

typology. Applying carefully selected technologies proactively

and within a suitable framework will help coastal communities

adapt effectively in the face of coastal change.

A diverse range of adaptation options exist. Whereas to date,

coastal communities have generally attempted to resist coastal

change, largely through the application of hard protection

(structural solutions), future adaptation should consider a

wider range of measures including soft protection, accommo-

dation and retreat measures. The level of experience and

knowledge in the application of the technologies discussed here

is variable. Table 6 summarises the authors’ indicative judge-

ments on the level of experience in developed and developing

countries. This highlights the importance of sharing experience,

with the needs of the developing world being significant. In

general, small islands and deltas in developing countries have the

greatest needs.

Adaptation is an ongoing process, in which the preferred

operational state is monitoring and review (Figure 6); imple-

mentation is not an endpoint in itself. To adapt effectively,

decision-makers must first understand how coastal change is

likely to manifest itself in a specific region. This will inform

when and how adaptation is required. Specific technologies can

then be selected, designed and applied as appropriate. It is

*Hard defences are likely to be employed on the seaward edges of claimed land; there will be a number of additional knowledgerequirements associated with these defences.{Knowledge requirements will vary with the objective of realignment (e.g. coastal defence, habitat creation, etc.).{Present and future conditions, as appropriate.1Due to normal tides as opposed to extreme water levels."Of the structure or its environs.**Dredge sites to source suitable material.{{If undertaking land claim by elevation raising.{{If providing artificial nourishment.11If elevation raising is required.""Arguably, this should be essential in the selection of a setback distance but the survey of literature indicates otherwise.***As part of a flood warning system.

Table 3. Continued



106

important to remember here that residual risk will always

remain: this is especially relevant for protection measures and

flooding. Ultimately, uncertainty cannot be removed; adapta-

tion needs to accept uncertainty and design measures with this

in mind. Once implemented, adaptation enters a state of

monitoring and review. This ongoing assessment allows coastal

managers to assess how well selected approaches are function-

ing and to make necessary adjustments in response to emerging

insights from monitoring and/or changing societal goals and

priorities.

A number of recurring themes are apparent, such as knowledge

requirements, including the need for scenarios of extreme water

level, local wave climate, tidal regime and nearshore bathy-

metry, as well as RSLR and related scenarios. Uncertainty

within these scenarios needs to be considered by the selection of

robust adaptation technologies. Recurring monitoring require-

ments include the need for topographic and bathymetric

surveys and investigations into structural integrity. Such

requirements are fulfilled in many areas of the UK by the

Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programmes, under

*Also requires monitoring of the protective measures employed; see also relevant monitoring requirements for these structures.{If erosion reduction was a project objective.{If habitat creation or improvement was a project objective.1Assessment of individual flood-proofing measures should be made before building and expressed via building standards.

Table 4. Evaluative monitoring requirements for selected

adaptation technologies which are listed in Table 2 (source:

Linham and Nicholls, 2010)



107

which a wide range of data is collected, including wave, tide and

meteorological measurements, coastal and bathymetric surveys,

and aerial photographs. A similar monitoring capacity is

needed worldwide.

Furthermore, in view of shared barriers to effective imple-

mentation and shared knowledge and monitoring requirements

(Tables 3–5), the provision of technical support and guidance

from organisations with a well-developed science and technol-

ogy base would greatly aid effective adaptation. Such actions

could take the form of greater cooperation between univer-

sities, non-governmental organisations, commercial organisa-

tions and other research establishments, with local commu-

nities, coastal decision-makers and other stakeholders. Such

actions would facilitate transfer of experience, technology and

know-how and would aid selection and design of the most

appropriate adaptation measures.

Adaptation technologies cannot be considered a silver bullet;

the effectiveness of specific technologies will depend strongly

on the context in which they are applied. As such, technology

implementation is most effective as part of a broader,

integrated coastal management framework. As such, ICZM

is advocated here as the most appropriate framework within

which to carry out adaptation. The framework helps adapta-

tion become integrated within the activities of all planning

institutions, thus serving to reduce conflicts of interest and

competing objectives. It also serves to create a platform for

considering the broad range of adaptation options available

and for engaging and educating stakeholders. The approach

also aids holistic management of coastlines in view of both

climate and non-climate stresses. It remains however, that

barriers such as short-termism and institutional barriers may

only be addressed through fundamental changes at a decision-

making level. As such, coupling this approach with the

development of regional frameworks to provide long-term,

holistic management goals and to develop interdisciplinary

approaches to coastal management is likely to provide the

most effective adaptation.

6. Conclusions

Coastal change is an ongoing and natural process that is driven

by multiple climate and non-climate factors. In the past, coasts

have responded freely to these drivers. Today however, the

presence of vast amounts of human infrastructure in the coastal

zone, and the increasingly likely effects of coastal climate change

means that coastal change now poses a significant threat.

Hence, adaptation to coastal change is more essential now than

ever before. However, the uncertainty of future climate change

poses a challenge to the optimisation of adaptation options. As

such, future adaptations will not only have to cope with

anticipated changes in climate and its associated impacts, but

must also be capable of coping with the wider range of

uncertainty. Furthermore, our long-term commitment to SLR

has effectively brought about a long-term commitment to

adaptation.

This paper follows a tripartite adaptation typology of: (1)

protection; (2) accommodation; and (3) retreat. For the most

Barrier Description

Awareness The links between application of proposed technologies and coastal flood and erosion protection can be

unclear, unless the public and decision-makers can be educated as to the advantages of a given technology

Economic Unit costs for hard defences can be significant (Linham et al., 2010) and costs are likely to rise in response to

SLR (Burgess and Townend, 2004; Townend and Burgess, 2004)

Institutional A lack of legal and regulatory frameworks, limited institutional capacity, excessive bureaucratic procedures

and restrictive bidding procedures

Technological Lack of infrastructure, equipment and know-how, lack of technical standards and institutions and a lack of a

technology knowledge base

Information A lack of technical and financial information and/or a demonstrated track record for many coastal adaptation

technologies

Short-termism Short-term political and economic considerations frequently win out over longer-term approaches

Uncertainty There are large uncertainties about the scale and rate of coastal change and relevant drivers such as SLR; these

uncertainties make it difficult to make decisions and commit the necessary resources

Table 5. Common barriers to the effective implementation of

coastal adaptation technologies (adapted from UNFCCC, 1999)



108

effective adaptation, implementation of protection, accom-

modation, and/or retreat should be carried out as part of a

multi-stage and iterative process, involving three main steps:

(1) prioritisation of risks and opportunities; (2) implementa-

tion of risk reduction measures; and (3) operation and

monitoring/review. As such, adaptation cannot be considered

an endpoint in itself, but an ongoing process with review and

monitoring being the preferred state. Conceptualising the

process in this manner serves to illustrate and facilitate

adaptation in all types of setting globally. Furthermore, by

explicitly following these steps, the effectiveness of adaptation

measures can be increased, for example through a more

complete understanding of the risks and opportunities of

coastal change, by improved stakeholder education and

engagement, and through more intelligent adjustments to

adaptation approaches.

This paper discusses a number of specific technologies which

may be applied as part of a wider adaptation approach.

Although indicative of those most widely used to date, they do

not constitute a comprehensive catalogue of the available

options. It is merely hoped that by highlighting the diversity of

adaptation options available, it will induce greater considera-

tion of more novel solutions; particularly soft protection,

accommodate and retreat. With adaptation to coastal change

being needed so widely in the coming decades, universal

protection is not appropriate and the full range of options

needs to be considered.

Technology

Developed country Developing country

CommentsLow Med. High Low Med. High

Beach nourishment 3 3 Rapid growth in application

Artificial dunes and dune

rehabilitation

3 3

Seawalls/revetments 3 3 Developing country approaches are often

ad-hoc

Sea dykes 3 3 East Asian countries (e.g. China) have a long

history of dyke construction

Groynes 3 3

Detached breakwaters 3 3

Surge barriers 3 3 A more specialised technology which is

likely to see more widespread application

Closure dams 3 3

Land claim 3 3 Most common in areas of high population

density

Flood-proofing 3 3 Growing application worldwide

Wetland restoration 3 3

Floating agricultural systems 3 3 Application only occurs in a few delta

environments (e.g. Bangladesh)

Saline-resistant crops 3 3

Coastal aquaculture 3 3 In developing countries driven to date by the

value of fisheries rather than climate change

Flood hazard mapping 3 3 Rapid growth in application

Flood warnings 3 3 Rapid growth in application

Enhanced drainage systems 3 3

Managed realignment 3 3 Applied in areas of historic land claim –

mainly in NW Europe and USA to date

Coastal setbacks 3 3 Rapid growth in application

Table 6. Indicative estimates of the current degree of experience in

the application of adaptation technologies in developed and

developing countries. Experience also varies between countries

(source: Linham and Nicholls (2010))



109

Technology and knowledge transfer are key for effective and

successful future adaptations. This paper has highlighted a

number of key areas in which knowledge and capacity must be

developed and areas in which greater understanding should be

sought in order to overcome barriers. As many of these issues

recur for all technologies, investment in capacity building to

address these shortfalls would maximise return on adaptation

investments.

Despite the obvious importance of technology in adaptation, it

is essential to note that it is not a panacea. Vulnerability also

depends on the prevailing social, economic and environmental

conditions and existing management practices. As such, coastal

adaptation technologies are most effective when implemented

as part of a broader, integrated coastal management frame-

work such as ICZM. Such an approach should aim to support

and stimulate socio-economic development whilst protecting

natural benefits such as biodiversity and sediment exchange,

thus supporting immediate as well as long-term needs.

AcknowledgementsThis paper is based on the guidebook Technologies for Climate

Change Adaptation – Coastal Erosion and Flooding prepared by

the authors in 2010 for the Technology Needs Assessment

(TNA) Project (http://tech-action.org/). The TNA project is

funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and

implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP). Specific thanks go to Dr Xianli Zhu of the UNEP

Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development,

who coordinated the production of the TNA guidebook and to

this article’s anonymous reviewers who provided constructive

comments for the improvement of this paper.

REFERENCES

Bijlsma L, Ehler CN, Klein RJT et al. (1996) Coastal zones and

small islands. In Climate Change 1995 – Impacts,

Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change:

Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Watson RT,

Zinyowera MC and Moss RH (eds.)). Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 289–324.

Bradbury AP (2009) A national framework for regional coastal

monitoring programmes. Proceedings of the 44th Defra

Flood and Coastal Risk Management Conference

(FCRM09), Telford, UK.

Bradbury A, McFarland S, Home J and Eastick C (2002)

Development of a strategic coastal monitoring programme

for southeast England. In Coastal Engineering 2002:

Proceedings of the 28th International Conference (McKee

Smith J (ed.)). World Scientific, Singapore, vol. 3, pp.

3234–3246.

Bruun P (1962) Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion.

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,

Journal of Waterways and Harbours Division 88(WW1):

117–130.

Burgess K and Townend I (2004) The impact of climate change

upon coastal defence structures. Proceedings of the 39th

Defra Flood and Coastal Management Conference.

Cicin-Sain B and Knecht R (1998) Integrated Coastal and Ocean

Management Concepts and Practices. Island Press,

Washington DC, USA.

Cowell PJ, Stive MJF, Niedoroda AW et al. (2003) The coastal-

tract (part I): a conceptual approach to aggregated

modelling of low-order coastal change. Journal of Coastal

Research 19(4): 812–827.

Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

(2006) Shoreline Management Plan Guidance. Volume 1:

Aims and Requirements. Defra, London, UK.

Doody JP (2008) Saltmarsh Conservation, Management and

Restoration. Springer, Dusseldorf, Germany.

Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate.

Global Environmental Change 19(2): 240–247.

Hay JE (2009) Institutional and Policy Analysis of Disaster Risk

Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Pacific Island

Countries. United Nations International System for

Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), Suva, Fiji.

IPCC CZMS (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Coastal

Zone Management Strategy) (1990) Strategies for

Adaptation to Sea Level Rise. Report of the Coastal Zone

Management Subgroup, Response Strategies Working

Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

Management, The Hague, the Netherlands.

Johnston A and Wilke L (2011) Local Authorities, Big Society

and Adaptation to Climate Change. Local Government

Information Unit, London, UK.

Kay R and Alder J (2005) Coastal Planning and Management,

2nd edn. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK.

Klein RJT and Tol RSJ (1997) Adaptation to Climate Change:

Options and Technologies – an Overview Paper. United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn,

Germany, Technical paper FCCC/TP/1997/3.

Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Ragoonaden S et al. (2001) Technological

options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones.

Journal of Coastal Research 17(3): 531–543.

Leafe R, Pethick J and Townend I (1998) Realising the benefits of

shoreline management. Geographical Journal 164(3): 282–

290.

Linham MM and Nicholls RJ (2010) Technologies for Climate

Change Adaptation: Coastal Erosion and Flooding. UNEP

Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable

Development, Roskilde, Denmark, TNA Guidebook Series.

Linham MM, Green CH and Nicholls RJ (2010) AVOID Report on

the Costs of Adaptation to the Effects of Climate Change in



110

the World’s Large Port Cities. Met Office, Exeter, UK, AV/

WS2/D1/R14, pp. 1–101.

Lumbroso DM and Vinet F (2011) A comparison of the causes,

effects and aftermaths of the coastal flooding of England in

1953 and France in 2010. Natural Hazards and Earth

System Sciences 11(8): 2321–2333.

McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ and White KS

(eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Menendez M and Woodworth PL (2010) Changes in extreme

high water levels based on a quasi-global tide-gauge

dataset. Journal of Geophysical Research 115(C10011),

http:dx/doi.og/10.1029/2009JC005997.

Nicholls RJ (2010) Impacts of and responses to sea-level rise. In

Understanding Sea-Level Rise and Variability (Church JA,

Woodworth PL, Aarup T and Wilson WS (eds.)). Wiley-

Blackwell, Chichester, UK, pp. 17–51.

Nicholls RJ and Lowe JA (2004) Benefits of mitigation of climate

change for coastal areas. Global Environmental Change

14(3): 229–244.

Nicholls RJ, Wong PP, Burkett VR et al. (2007) Coastal systems

and low-lying areas. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Parry ML,

Canziani OF, Palutikof JP van der Linden PJ and Hanson

CE (eds)). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

pp. 315–356.

Nicholls RJ, Hanson SE, Lowe JA et al. (2011) Constructing Sea-

Level Scenarios for Impact and Adaptation Assessment of

Coastal Area: A Guidance Document. Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change Task Group on Data and

Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis

(TGICA), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. See http://www.

ipcc-data.org/docs/Sea_Level_Scenario_Guidance_

Oct2011.pdf (accessed 26/07/2012).

Paul BK and Dutt S (2010) Hazards warnings and response to

evacuation orders: the case of Bangladesh’s Cyclone Sidr.

Geographical Review 100(3): 336–355.

Stive MJF (2004) How important is global warming for coastal

erosion? Climate Change 64(1–2): 27–39.

Stive MJF, Aarninkhof SGJ, Hamm L et al. (2002) Variability of

shore and shoreline evolution. Coastal Engineering 47(2):

211–235.

Tompkins EL, Nicholson-Cole SA, Hurlston LA et al. (2005) Surviving

Climate Change in Small Islands: A Guidebook. Tyndall

Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK.

Townend I and Burgess K (2004) Methodology for assessing the

impact of climate change upon coastal defence structures.

International Coastal Engineering Conference 2004 (McKee

Smith J (ed.)). World Scientific, London, UK, pp. 3953–3965.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change) (1999) Coastal Adaptation Technologies.

UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany, Technical Paper. See http://

unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0199.pdf (accessed 01/07/

2010).

Van Koningsveld M, Mulder JPM, Stive MJF, VanDerValk L and

VanDerWeck AW (2008) Living with sea level rise and

climate change: A case study of the Netherlands. Journal of

Coastal Research 24(2): 367–379.

Warrick RA and Orlemanns H (1990) Sea level rise. In Climate

Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Houghton JT,

Jenkins GJ and Ephramus JJ (eds)). Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 257–281.

World Bank (2010) Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian

Coastal Megacities: a Synthesis Report. The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA. See http://tinyurl.com/2dwtsmf

(accessed 27/02/2012).

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be

forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered

appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as

discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in

by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-

dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing

papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate

illustrations and references. You can submit your paper

online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,

where you will also find detailed author guidelines.



111

Documents

Adaptation Technologies for Coastal Erosion: A Review