Abstract
Net subsidence of most major deltas in the world and related vulnerability are thought to be increasing, and this is often linked causally to human activities. This paper examines this causality against a range of co-varying factors. We do so with a principal component analysis of co-variability of a range of geophysical and socio-economical indicators of 33 deltas mainly derived from the DIVA tool. Land potentially lost and people at risk of flooding are our indicators of vulnerability. The former correlated positively with maximum surge height and negatively with net sea level rise. The latter correlated positively with delta area, average river discharge, and maximum surge and negatively with net uplift (or subsidence). Thus, variation in societal vulnerability across deltas depends on short-term, instantaneous risks linked to lowland area, river discharge and storm surges rather than on longer-term, slow, net sea level rise. Delta management should focus on precautionary spatial planning, and on maintenance or restoration of historical sediment delivery and accretion rates. Especially larger deltas with high population densities combine a high risk with the potential to accommodate flood water and mitigate flooding risks. The deltas of the Yangtze-Kiang and Ganges-Brahmaputra share these characteristics. Here space should allow engineering of flood retention, sedimentation and diversion channels as well as refuges and safe economic hotspots. At the other end, in deltas with a high population density and limited space, like the Chao Praya, means for adaptation must be sought outside the delta proper. In deltas with low population densities, such as the Lena, Yukon or Fly, natural delta dynamics can prevail.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Most modern deltas will not keep up with current and projected sea level rise, as Ericson et al. (2006) and Syvitski et al. (2009) have demonstrated. Most probably, global sea level rise will continue at present rates or accelerate (Bindoff et al. 2007). Hence, prevailing net subsidence implies that valuable land and associated economic assets will drown over the coming decades, notably in vulnerable deltas (Syvitski et al. 2009). However, net subsidence does not necessarily imply an increase in vulnerability, quantified here as land lost and people at risk (Nicholls 2004; McFadden et al. 2007; Marchand 2009; defined in Table 1). Vulnerability seen this way has a geophysical and a socio-economic component. The former is related to coastal geomorphology, and the latter to population density, accumulated wealth, societal institutions and hazard preparedness. Our aim is to analyse how both geophysical and socio-economic elements contribute to the compound vulnerability of deltas, as foci of socio-economic activity (Doll et al. 2006; Syvitski et al. 2009). For this purpose we analysed co-variability, resolution and span of a range of geophysical and socio-economical vulnerability indicators of 33 major deltas derived from two comparable global databases, the World Delta Database (WDD) and the DIVA tool (Hart and Coleman 2004; Hinkel and Klein 2009). This breakdown of vulnerability into underlying components will be helpful to identify viable adaptation policy options.
2 Material and methods
The DIVA tool (Vafeidis et al. 2008; Hinkel and Klein 2009; Hinkel et al. 2010) was obtained from Jochen Hinkel, maintaining the tool for the DINAS-COAST consortium. DIVA combines a global database of the world’s coast broken down in coastal segments of variable length with a world climate and socio-economic model. We extracted from DIVA those coastal segments that have a delta. DIVA allows scenario analysis with pre-incorporated SRES- or custom-made scenarios. A scenario run in DIVA generates stepwise annual worldwide climate, demographic and economic output for a user-defined period up to 2100, disaggregated to coastline segments from regional and national estimates (Hinkel and Klein 2009). Here we only present outcomes for 2000 as ‘current’, and for the SRES scenarios A2 and B1 for 2100, because these span the full width in present model outcomes (cf Lorenzoni et al. 2000). DIVA variables included in the analysis are presented in Table 1. The WDD was obtained from the website maintained by George Hart and Jim Coleman at http://www.geol.lsu.edu/WDD/. The latter database provided mainly geophysical data that partly overlapped with DIVA, hence we only used delta area from the WDD. For the purpose of verification, we compared our DIVA and WDD data with those of Ericson et al. (2006), Overeem and Syvtski (2009), and Syvitski et al. (2009). Our data did correlate quite well with those of the other two sources (r2 values range between 0.44 and 0.75, all p < 0.05; Supplementary Material S1), although our delta area was substantially larger (~4x) than that of Syvitski et al. (2009), probably due to a restricted upper elevation limit used by the latter. Next, we performed a multivariate analysis on the final table with 21 variables for 33 deltas. We analysed covariance patterns with a principal components analysis (PCA) based on the correlation matrix and without any variance-maximizing rotation. Subsequently we analysed dependence of our two main vulnerability indicators, land lost and people at risk of being flooded, to possible forcing factors in the full matrix using multiple regression.
3 Results and discussion
Average river discharge, delta area, subsidence and the maximum storm surge height co-varied distinctly with the first principal component, and in a direction orthogonal to net sea level rise, or coastal slope (Fig. 1, Table 2; the latter not significantly). Land lost and people at risk of flooding, our proxies of vulnerability, correlated with the former four rather than the latter two variables. Hence, variation in vulnerability across deltas appeared primarily a function of storm surge height, river discharge and spatial extent of the delta or adjacent lowland area, rather than of longer-term, slow, net sea level rise (Fig. 1). Overall, future maximum storm surges should be expected to increase with sea level rise (e.g. Strauss et al. 2012), but this appears to have little influence on the variation in vulnerability among deltas in our data set. Variability among deltas was much higher in the area of the coastal zone under 2 m and in the land potentially lost (coefficient of variation 2.2), as well as in population density (cv = 1.7), than in relative sea level rise (cv = 0.2). The same sea level rise will have profoundly different effects in different deltas, depending on coastal morphology and population density. Similarly, Tebaldi et al. (2012) observed considerable spatial variability in the response of flood return periods along the coasts of the USA. Individual scatter plots (Fig. 2) support the pattern of correlations among variables in the PCA depicted in Fig. 1: people at risk of flooding correlated strongly with PC1, delta area, and coastal population density. The latter correlated significantly, but less strongly with PC2 (Fig. 2a, b, c). Maximum surge height correlated significantly with land lost (Table 3). Although the individual bivariate regression had a low r2 (Fig. 2d), multiple regression models explained more (Table 3).
Current vulnerability predicted future vulnerability quite well (Fig. 2e), Also the two SRES scenarios show wide divergence, as A2 will lead to about twice as much land potentially flooded as B1, and B1 is comparable to the current situation (Fig. 2e). The Yangtze-Kiang is a distinct outlier under B1. Accounting for the presence of sea defences appears to increase the variation in vulnerability among deltas: compare the spread among scenarios in people potentially flooded with that in people at risk (Fig. 1). This does underline the importance of the socio-economic component: under A2 more people are flooded (Fig. 2e) and this variable also covaries more closely with surge height under A2 (Fig. 1).
The linearity with ‘current’ is striking. The variability among deltas appears to be maintained despite substantial differences in economic and population development for different regions in the two scenarios. So an increased SLR with A2 is important in increasing overall global vulnerability, but the pattern of differences among deltas appears quite robust. It should be noted that we have not implemented a low probability extremely high sea level rise in our DIVA runs, but adhered to the commonly applied SRES scenarios. For A2 the mean sea level rise until 2100 across our deltas was 53 ± 0.4 cm.
A scatter plot of all 33 included deltas for population density against delta area (Fig. 2f) suggests that the Asian deltas Mekong, Yangtze-Kiang, Ganges-Brahmaputra and Chao Praya are the main outliers. Larger deltas with high population densities combine a high risk with the potential to accommodate flood water and mitigate flooding risks. The deltas of the Yangtze-Kiang and Ganges-Brahmaputra share these characteristics (Fig. 2f) and are also ranked as deltas at risk by Syvitski et al. (2009). However, particularly here space should allow for the engineering of flood retention, sedimentation and diversion channels as well as refuges and safe economic hotspots. At the other end, in deltas with a high population density and limited space, like the Chao Praya (Fig. 2f), means for adaptation must be sought outside the delta proper. In deltas with low population densities, such as the Lena, Yukon or Fly, natural delta dynamics can prevail.
We carried out multiple regressions to separate the geophysical and socio-economic component of vulnerability (Table 3). Land that is vulnerable to present and future flooding varies most strongly with the maximum surge height, a geophysical indicator. Wave climate was also significant, but less important. Stepwise regression modelling adds GDPpc (per capita gross domestic product) as another indicator, implying the accumulation of wealth in large coastal plains as a separate independent factor, but this variable adds only little explanatory power. The total number of people at risk of being flooded is a straightforward function of deltaic area and coastal population density, together explaining 61% of the variance. Deltaic area explains 41%; hence this geophysical aspect explains most of the variability in vulnerability.
Syvitski et al. (2009) claimed that “It remains alarming how often deltas flood, whether from land or from sea, and the trends seem to be worsening.” Instead, we argue that one should rather favour continued, frequent or previous flooding regimes where possible, since this flooding will at least deliver some of the sediment needed to counter net subsidence (Syvitski et al. 2003; Walling 2006). Also, the empirical support for a “worsening trend” is equivocal (Kundzewicz et al. 2005; Bouwer et al. 2008; Bouwer 2011): rather than increased flood frequencies it is the increased human population (Small and Nicholls 2003) and the accumulation of wealth that lead to increased disaster loss and vulnerability.
In general, we conclude from the observed pattern that variation in societal vulnerability in deltas depends rather on short-term and local risks linked to lowland area, peak discharge and storm surges than on longer-term, slow, more large-scale and net sea level rise in deltas. Here we support Nicholls and Cazenave (2010) in their stress on local non-climate-related drivers of vulnerability to net sea level rise. Therefore, the focus of adaptation policy should be on precautionary spatial planning, and on maintenance or restoration of historical sediment delivery to prevent sediment starvation and delta subsidence. At the same time, we recognize that often land degradation in the hinterland has historically provided the sediment to sustain the rapid accretion of deltas (cf Hanson 1990; Lavigne and Gunnell 2006; Thampanya et al. 2006; Walling 2006), whereas the last century witnessed major damming of rivers, which starved deltas (Thampanya et al. 2006; Walling 2006) and reduced sea level rise (Nicholls and Cazenave 2010; Pokhrel et al. 2012). These dams are not easily removed, and it is questionable whether further, up-catchment land degradation is to be favoured to ensure coastal sediment delivery.
References
Bindoff NL, Willebrand J, Artale V, Cazenave A, Gregory J, Gulev S, Hanawa K, Le Quéré C, Levitus S, Nojiri Y, Shum CK, Talley LD, Unnikrishnan A (2007) Observations: oceanic climate change and sea level. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor MMB, Miller HL (eds) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Bouwer LM (2011) Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bull Am Met Soc 92:39–46
Bouwer LM, Vermaat JE, Aerts JCJH (2008) Regional sensitivity of mean and peak discharges to climate variability in Europe. J Geophys Res 113:D19103
Doll CNH, Muller JP, Morley JG (2006) Mapping regional economic activity from night-time light satellite imagery. Ecol Econ 57:75–92
Ericson JP, Vörösmarty CJ, Dingman SL, Ward LG, Meybeck M (2006) Effective sea-level rise and deltas: causes of change and human dimension implications. Glob Planet Change 50:63–82
Hanson CH (1990) Estimated post-Messinian sediment supply and sedimentation rates on the Ebro continental margin, Spain. Mar Geol 95:395–418
Hart GF, Coleman JM (2004) The World Deltas Database Framework, URL http://www.geol.lsu.edu/WDD
Hinkel J, Klein RJT (2009) Integrating knowledge to assess coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: the development of the DIVA tool. Glob Env Change 19:384–395
Hinkel J, Nicholls RJ, Vafeidis AT, Tol RSJ, Aviagianou T (2010) Assessing risk of and adaptation to sea-level rise in the European Union: an application of DIVA. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 15:703–719
Kundzewicz ZW, Graczyk D, Maurer T, Pinskar I, Radziejewski M, Svensson C, Szwed M (2005) Trend detection in river flow series: 1. Annual maximum flow. Hydrol Sci J 50:797–810
Lavigne F, Gunnell Y (2006) Land cover change and abrupt environmental impacts on Javan volcanoes, Indonesia: a long-term perspective on recent events. Reg Env Change 6:86–100
Lorenzoni I, Jordan A, Hulme M, Turner RK, O’Riordan T (2000) A co-evolutionary approach to climate impact assessment: part I. Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Glob Env Change 10:57–68
Marchand M (2009) Modelling coastal vulnerability design and evaluation of a vulnerability model for tropical storms and floods. Deltares Select Series Volume 5. Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands, p 247
McFadden L, Penning-Rowsell E, Nicholls R (2007) Setting the parameters: a framework for developing cross-cutting perspectives of vulnerability for coastal zone management. In: McFadden L, Nicholls R, Penning-Rowsell E (eds) Managing coastal vulnerability. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–28
Nicholls RJ (2004) Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Chang 14:69–89
Nicholls RJ, Cazenave A (2010) Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science 328:1517–1520
Overeem I, Syvitski JPM (2009) Dynamics and vulnerability of delta systems. LOICZ reports & studies no. 35. GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, Germany
Pokhrel YN, Hanasaki N, Yeh PJ-F, Yamada TJ, Kanae S, Oki T (2012) Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nature Geosc 5:389–392
Small C, Nicholls RJ (2003) A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J Coast Res 19:584–599
Strauss BH, Ziemlinski R, Weiss JL, Overpeck JT (2012) Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States. Env Res Lett 7:014033
Syvitski JPM, Peckham SD, Hilberman R, Mulder T (2003) Predicting the terrestrial flux of sediment to the global ocean: a planetary perspective. Sed Geol 162:5–24
Syvitski JPM, Kettner AJ, Overeem I, Hutton EWH, Hannon MT, Brakenridge GR, Day J, Vörösmarty C, Saito Y, Giosian L, Nicholls RJ (2009) Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nature Geosc 2:681–686
Tebaldi C, Strauss BH, Zervas CE (2012) Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts. Env Res Lett 7:014032
Thampanya U, Vermaat JE, Sinsakul S, Panapitukkul N (2006) Coastal erosion and mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Est Coast Shelf Sci 68:75–85
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 24:917–924
Walling DE (2006) Human impact on land–ocean sediment transfer by the world’s rivers. Geomorphology 79:192–216
Acknowledgements
The present analysis uses data compiled earlier for the project ‘Deltas on the move’, co-funded by Dutch national research programmes ‘Climate changes spatial planning’ and ‘Living with Water’, and commissioned by the International Association of Dredging Companies (IADC) and World Wide Fund for Nature Netherlands (WWF). We thank Ron Janssen, Nils de Reus, Nancy Omtzigt (IVM) and Wim Braakhekke, Jessica Reker, Alphons van Winden (Stroming) for the pleasant collaboration. Hans de Moel critically read an earlier version of the manuscript. Robert Nicholls commented constructively on a presentation of this analysis and Jochen Hinkel is thanked for providing the updated version of DIVA.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOCX 31 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Vermaat, J.E., Eleveld, M.A. Divergent options to cope with vulnerability in subsiding deltas. Climatic Change 117, 31–39 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0532-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0532-3