Climatic Change

, Volume 117, Issue 4, pp 783–794 | Cite as

The effects of adaptation and mitigation on coastal flood impacts during the 21st century. An application of the DIVA and IMAGE models

  • Jochen Hinkel
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
  • Robert J. Nicholls
  • Richard J. T. Klein
Article

Abstract

This paper studies the effects of mitigation and adaptation on coastal flood impacts. We focus on a scenario that stabilizes concentrations at 450 ppm-CO2-eq leading to 42 cm of global mean sea-level rise in 1995–2100 (GMSLR) and an unmitigated one leading to 63 cm of GMSLR. We also consider sensitivity scenarios reflecting increased tropical cyclone activity and a GMSLR of 126 cm. The only adaptation considered is upgrading and maintaining dikes. Under the unmitigated scenario and without adaptation, the number of people flooded reaches 168 million per year in 2100. Mitigation reduces this number by factor 1.4, adaptation by factor 461 and both options together by factor 540. The global annual flood cost (including dike upgrade cost, maintenance cost and residual damage cost) reaches US$ 210 billion per year in 2100 under the unmitigated scenario without adaptation. Mitigation reduces this number by factor 1.3, adaptation by factor 5.2 and both options together by factor 7.8. When assuming adaptation, the global annual flood cost relative to GDP falls throughout the century from about 0.06 % to 0.01–0.03 % under all scenarios including the sensitivity ones. From this perspective, adaptation to coastal flood impacts is meaningful to be widely applied irrespective of the level of mitigation. From the perspective of a some less-wealthy and small island countries, however, annual flood cost can amount to several percent of national GDP and mitigation can lower these costs significantly. We conclude that adaptation and mitigation are complimentary policies in coastal areas.

References

  1. Bender MA, Knutson TR, Tuleya RE, Sirutis JJ, Vecchi GA, Garner ST, Held IM (2010) Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense atlantic hurricanes. Science 327(5964):454–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein Goldewijk K (eds) (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4. Publication 500110002/2006, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, NLGoogle Scholar
  3. CIESIN, CIAT (2004) Gridded Population of the World (GPW), Version 3. Center for International Earth Science Information Network and Columbia University and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical and Palisades. CIESIN, Columbia University, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. DINAS-COAST Consortium (2006) DIVA 1.5.5. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Potsdam and Germany and CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawson R, Dickson M, Nicholls R, Hall J, Walkden M, Stansby P, Mokrech M, Richards J, Zhou J, Milligan J, Jordan A, Pearson S, Rees J, Bates P, Koukoulas S, Watkinson A (2009) Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long term change. Clim Chang 95:249–288. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9532-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2007) Peaking profiles for achieving long-term temperature targets with more likelihood at lower costs. PNAS 104(46):17,931–17,936. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701598104 Google Scholar
  7. Dugan JE, Hubbard DM (2006) Ecological responses to coastal armoring on exposed sandy beaches. Shore & Beach 74(1):10–16Google Scholar
  8. Fankhauser S (1995) Protection versus retreat: the economic costs of sea-level rise. Environ Plan A 27(2):299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hallegatte S, Ghil M (2008) Natural disasters impacting a macroeconomic model with endogenous dynamics. Ecol Econ 68:582–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallegatte S, Hourcade JC, Dumas P (2007) Why economic dynamics matter in assessing climate change damages: illustration on extreme events. Ecol Econ 62(2):330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinkel J, Klein RJT (2009) Integrating knowledge to assess coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: The development of the DIVA tool. Glob Environ Chang 19(3):384–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hinkel J, Bisaro S, Downing T, Hofmann ME, Lonsdale K, Mcevoy D, Tabara JD (2009) Learning to adapt. Narratives of decision makers adapting to climate change. In: Hulme M, Neufeldt H (eds) Making climate change work for us: European perspectives on adaptation and mitigation strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113–134Google Scholar
  13. Hinkel J, Brown S, Exner L, Nicholls RJ, Vafeidis AT, Kebede AS (2011) Sea-level rise impacts on Africa and the effects of mitigation and adaptation: an application of DIVA. Reg Environ Chang 12:207–224. doi:10.1007/s10113-011-0249-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hof AF, den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2008) Analysing the costs and benefits of climate policy: value judgements and scientific uncertainties. Glob Environ Chang 18(3):412–424. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoozemans FMJ, Marchand M, Pennekamp HA (1993) Sea level rise: A global vulnerability assessment: Vulnerability assessments for population and coastal wetlands and rice production on a global scale, revised edn. Delft Hydraulics and Rijkswaterstaat. Delft Hydraulics and Rijkswaterstaat, DelftGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Ragoonaden S, Capobianco M, Aston J, Buckley EN (2001) Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. J Coast Res 17(3):531–543Google Scholar
  17. Knutson TR, McBride JL, Chan J, Emanuel K, Holland G, Landsea C, Held I, Kossin JP, Srivastava AK, Sugi M (2010) Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat Geosci 3(3):157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McFadden L, Spencer T, Nicholls RJ (2007) Broad-scale modelling of coastal wetlands: what is required? Hydrobiologia 577(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meinshausen M, Hare B, Wigley TML, van Vuuren D, den Elzen MGJ, Swart R (2006) Multi-gas emissions pathways to meet climate targets. Clim Chang 75:151–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2° C. Nature 458:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menendez M, Woodworth PL (2011) Changes in extreme high water levels based on a quasi-global tide-gauge dataset. Journal of Geophysical Research under reviewGoogle Scholar
  22. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Emissions scenarios. Special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Nicholls RJ (2002) Analysis of global impacts of sea-level rise: a case study of flooding. Phys Chem Earth 27(32–34):1455–1466Google Scholar
  24. Nicholls RJ, Lowe JA (2004) Benefits of mitigation of climate change for coastal areas. Glob Environ Chang 14(3):229–244. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2004.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicholls RJ, Wong PP, Burkett VR, Codignotto JO, Hay JE, McLean RF, Ragoonaden S, Woodroffe CD (2007) Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Impacts and adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 315–356Google Scholar
  26. Nicholls R, Hanson S, Brown S, Hinkel J (2010a) Economics of coastal zone adaptation to climate change. The World Bank Discussion Paper No. 10. Tech. rep., World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicholls RJ, Marinova N, Lowe JA, Brown S, Vellinga P, de Gusmao D, Hinkel J, Tol RSJ (2010b) Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a “beyond 4 degree world” in the 21st century. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 369:161–181. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.029 Google Scholar
  28. Peltier WR (2000) Global glacial isostatic adjustment and modern instrumental records of relative sea level history. In: Douglas BC, Kearney MS, Leatherman SP (eds) Sea-level rise. History and consequences. Academic, San Diego, pp 65–95Google Scholar
  29. Rabus B, Eineder M, Roth A, Bamler R (2003) The shuttle radar topography mission: a new class of digital elevation models acquired by spaceborne radar. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 57(4):241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rahmstorf S (2007) A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315:368–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tol RSJ (2006) The DIVA model: socio-economic scenarios and impacts and adaptation and world heritage. DINAS-COAST Consortium, 2006. DIVA 1.5.5. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  32. Tol RSJ (2007) The double trade-off between adaptation and mitigation for sea level rise: an application of FUND. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(5):741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vafeidis AT, Nicholls RJ, McFadden L, Tol RSJ, Hinkel J, Spencer T, Grashoff PS, Boot G, Klein RJT (2008) A new global coastal database for impact and vulnerability analysis to sea-level rise. J Coast Res 24(4):917–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL, Eickhout B, Strengers BJ, van Ruijven B, Wonink S, van Houdt R (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81:119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Vuuren DP, Meinshausen M, Plattner GK, Joos F, Strassmann KM, Smith SJ, Wigley TML, Raper SCB, Riahi K, de la Chesnaye F, den Elzen MGJ, Fujino J, Jiang K, Nakicenovic N, Paltsev S, Reilly JM (2008) Temperature increase of 21st century mitigation scenarios. PNAS 105(40):15,258–15,262. doi:10.1073/pnas. 0711129105 Google Scholar
  36. van Vuuren DP, Isaac M, Kundzewicz ZW, Arnell N, Barker T, Criqui P, Berkhout F, Hilderink H, Hinkel J, Hof A, Kitous A, Kram T, Mechler R, Scrieciu S (2011) The use of scenarios as the basis for combined assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 21:575–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Webster P, Holland G, Curry J, Chang H (2005) Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309(5742):1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293:451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yohe G, Neumann J, Marshall P, Ameden H (1996) The economic cost of greenhouse-induced sea-level rise for developed property in the united states. Clim Chang 32(4):387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Hinkel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • 3
    • 4
  • Robert J. Nicholls
    • 5
  • Richard J. T. Klein
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Global Climate Forum (GCF)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Department of GeosciencesNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)BilthovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Faculty of Engineering and the Environment and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  6. 6.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden
  7. 7.Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research and Department of Thematic StudiesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations