Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Review

Coastal indices to assess sea-level rise impacts - A brief review of the

last decade
Carolina Rocha *, Carlos Antunes, Cristina Catita
Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências, Instituto Dom Luiz, Lisboa, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present review intends to serve as the most comprehensive work of the current scientific and the most
Sea-level rise updated research on coastal vulnerability and risk assessment due to sea-level rise. The article describes the
Coastal hazards existing scientific knowledge on an important subject that must be in the present climate change agenda, giving
Coastal vulnerability index
examples of methods, methodologies and applications that have been made around the world that can be
Coastal risk index
considered for application according to the specifics of each geographical area. This research demonstrates, with
Climate change
37 studies of the last decade, that a wide range of concepts, methods, parameters and indices have been used in
this context, considering different types of time and space scales for the operation of coastal processes, cate­
gorizing them in different intervals and classifying each variable results in a large spectrum of vulnerability and
risk levels. In light of the research included in this study, Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) is the most popular
designation of the index (78%). It was discovered that the index designation provided by the authors is erroneous
in 31 studies. Only 7 of the 29 studies that were designated as CVI were genuinely CVI. Coastal forcing factors
were employed in 24 studies, however, only half (18 studies) included socioeconomic parameters and only 7
used economic damage parameters. This demonstrated that there is no magic or right formula for assessing
vulnerability and risk, as this is largely conditioned by the availability of data and the place it is applied.
However, the lack of harmonization in the nomenclature of the indices is worrying. This article also guides how
the different indices should be designated, considering what they represent, and what kind of parameters are
being used, taking into account the scale on which the study is being applied.

1. Introduction
Coastal zones are an important natural system and a focal point in
many economies, hosting a wide range of social and economic activities
(Nguyen et al., 2016). As a result, in these areas there is an increasingly
high demographic exposure, creating a higher damage risk from
sea-level rise (SLR) to many coastal infrastructures and facilities, as well
as potential real estate economic depreciation. As a result, risk assess­
ment of coastal zones due to SLR is critical in coastal flooding risk
assessment and adaptation measures planning (Rocha et al., 2020).
Prioritizing and adapting high-risk sectors are vital to reduce financial
losses and constraints on future generations, who may not have time to
adopt necessary measures.
Changes in global mean sea level (GMSL) are mainly caused by an
increase in the ocean water volume induced by warmer water with a
lower density, as well as an increase in ocean mass due to land ice
melting or a net reduction in terrestrial water reservoirs (Oppenheimer
et al., 2022). While changes in relative mean sea level (RMSL) are also
influenced by the vertical velocity of the continental crust, due to tec­
tonic dynamics and to glacial isostatic adjustment, or to local vertical
phenomena such as sediment compaction or surface loading, as well as
local and regional changes of currents or even decadal to multidecadal
ocean oscillations (Pugh, 2004; Antunes, 2019). Other forcing compo­
nents that are directly linked to coastal risk, and that must inevitably be
considered together with SLR, are the astronomical tide, the storm
surge, the wave run-up, and the extreme weather events. These com­
ponents amplify the impacts on coastal erosion and coastal flooding
(Tsoukala et al., 2016). Many studies have been conducted at various
spatiotemporal scales of current SLR variations as a result of tidal gauge
observations and/or satellite altimetry (e.g., Fairbridge and Krebs, 1962;
Gornitz et al., 1982; Douglas, 1997; Leuliette et al., 2004; Church and
White, 2006; Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Holgate, 2007; Nerem et al., 2010;
Church et al., 2013; Kopp et al., 2014; Jevrejeva et al., 2014; Slangen
et al., 2017; Nauels et al., 2017; Sweet et al., 2017)

* Corresponding author. Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências, Instituto Dom Luiz, Lisboa, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: csirocha@ciencias.ulisboa.pt (C. Rocha), cmantunes@ciencias.ulisboa.pt (C. Antunes), cmcatita@ciencias.ulisboa.pt (C. Catita).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106536
Received 24 October 2022; Received in revised form 13 February 2023; Accepted 14 February 2023
Available online 12 March 2023
0964-5691/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

Fig. 1. Observations of current-day global mean sea-level rise (1986–2005) and projections of RCP2.6 and RCP8.5. a) until 2100. Adapted from IPCC et al. (2019a);
b) up to 2300, with limited confidence in sea-level projections after 2100. Adapted from Oppenheimer et al. (2022).

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC, 2018)
warned that SLR caused by climate change will continue to rise well
beyond 2100 (high confidence). There is no doubt that this is a real
threat that will amplify the vulnerability of small islands and low-lying
coastal areas, which will affect or will affect many human and ecological
systems. According to Box et al. (2022), one of the most significant
drivers of contemporary SLR is ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet.
According to Church and White (2011) and Hay et al. (2015) for a
1 ◦ C increase in global temperature anomaly, the global mean sea level
(GMSL) has increased about 20 cm since the late 19th century (globally
and regionally). There are significant uncertainties regarding the rates
and timing of future SLR, but IPCC (2014) projections from the Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5) for 2100 estimate a range of 0.28–0.52 m and
0.61–0.98 m under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) low
emission scenario 2.6 and high emission scenario 8.5, respectively, with
85% of confidence.
Oppenheimer et al. (2022) in the most recent IPCC Special Report on
the Oceans and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROOC), analyzed
more recent studies than the previous AR5 and included marine ice sheet
instability, which increased to 0.43 m (0.29 m–0.59 m) and 0.84 m
(0.61 m–1.10 m) the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios by 2100, respectively
(Fig. 1). This study also includes the 0.12 m from the marine ice sheet

Fig. 2. Options for risk reduction through adaptation. The figure is based on the conceptual framework of risk used in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5). Source:
IPCC et al. (2019a).

2
C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

instability, a much lower value than Box et al. (2022) which is a com­ Table 1
plementary approach that found the imbalance of Greenland ice with Definitions of concepts.
recent climate compromises at least by 27 cm SLR regardless of 21st-cen­ Concept Definition Reference
tury climate pathways.
Hazard Is the possible occurrence of a natural or ISDR (2009, p. 6),
The variability of GMSL projections across different studies, even human-induced physical event that can IPCC (2019b, p.
when using the same emission scenarios, often lead to disorientation in cause loss of life, injury, or other health- 688)
decision-making communities and the public in general (Garner et al., related issues, as well as damage and/or
2018; Horton et al., 2020). Sriver et al. (2018) propose a common loss of property, infrastructure,
livelihoods, service provision,
approach to managing this uncertainty that is based on defining deter­ ecosystems, and environmental
ministic scenarios of future SLR and selecting one or more scenarios, resources.
referred to as the ‘best-estimate’ and ‘worst-case’, as the basis for coastal Vulnerability Is the propensity or predisposition of the ISDR (2009, p. 6),
risk assessment methodologies for decision-makers to implement environment, people, or properties to a IPCC (2019b, p.
given danger, encompassing several 699)
adaptation measures when they become essential.
elements and concepts, such as
Considering the different SLR projections, it is clear that places, sensitivity or susceptibility to damage
livelihoods and ecosystems are at risk. IPCC et al. (2019a) estimated that and the lack of ability to adapt.
in 2050, one billion people will be living in the low-lying coastal zone, i. Exposure Is understood as the presence of people, ISDR (2009, p. 6),
e., live less than 10 m above today’s high tide. Nowadays, around 40% of livelihoods, species or ecosystems, IPCC (2019b, p.
environmental services and resources, 685)
the world’s population lives in the 100 km coastal strip (United Nations, infrastructure, or economic, social, or
2017). This percentage is increasing even more in the near future cultural goods in places and settings that
because people who live in inland areas are moving to the coasts in could be adversely affected.
search of better life conditions and opportunities (Small and Nicholls, Risk Is defined as the product of the ISDR (2009, p. 6),
probability of occurrence of a potential IPCC (2019b, p.
2003; Aerts et al., 2013; Neumann et al., 2015).
(unwanted) event, by the (unwanted) 696)
Despite exposure to harmful and changing circumstances, migration consequence associated with that event,
to these potentially vulnerable and dangerous places is inevitable, as thus resulting from the interaction of
they provide resources for human, social and economic growth (Lavell, hazard, vulnerability, and exposure.
2002; Cardona et al., 2012). The high exposure of coastal zones all over Risk The qualitative and/or quantitative IPCC (2019b, p.
assessment scientific estimation of risks. 696)
the world and its growth is very difficult to avoid, remaining only so­
Risk Based on measured or perceived risks, IPCC (2019b, p.
lutions such as territory smart planning, accompanied by the imple­ management plans, actions, strategies, or policies are 696)
mentation of mitigation and adaptation measures, however, they have a developed to limit the possibility and/or
very high cost of implementation. size of undesirable possible effects.
Impacts The consequences of risks on natural and IPCC (2019b, p.
Risk can be reduced through adaptation by addressing one or more of
human systems, that result from the 689)
the three risk factors: hazard, vulnerability and/or exposure (Fig. 2). interactions of climate-related hazards,
Reducing these factors can be accomplished over time through various exposure and vulnerability.
policies and actions until adaptation limitations are reached. According Adaptation Can occur in human and/or natural IPCC (2019b, p.
to Jevrejeva et al. (2018), the global annual costs of SLR impacts are systems. At first, the process of adjusting 678)
to current or expected climate effects
projected at US$27.0 trillion, which represents 2.7% of the current
aims to moderate harm or exploit
world gross domestic product (GDP), under the IPCC RCP8.5 extreme benefits and opportunities. In natural
scenario for 2100. However, if adaptation is committed these costs could systems, the adjustment process is made
drop to US$ 1.1 trillion per year, for the same scenario. to the actual climate and its effects,
where human intervention can facilitate
Over the past 30 years, scientists have begun to develop easy-to-
the process.
apply approaches incorporating SLR projections and other parameters Adaptation A set of adaption decisions that trade off IPCC (2019b, p.
to coastal risk assessment. In the scientific literature, several methods pathways short-term and long-term objectives and 693)
can be found (e.g., Index-based methods/Indicator-based approach, values. In order to find solutions that are
Decision Support Systems and methods based on dynamic computa­ relevant to individuals in the context of
their everyday lives and to prevent
tional models), for applying to different case studies and with different
potential maladaptations, these are
goals. However, it is unanimous that index-based methods are the most procedures of deliberate choice.
common, since they allow identifying and even prioritizing susceptible
regions or areas due to SLR impact, in a simple and no less effective way.
The problem that arises is that there is a wide variety of indices, and they into two important subchapters: i) description of indices developed for
are not always correctly named, since they are dependent on specific and coastal vulnerability and risk assessment and ii) summarizes and dis­
different parameters. cusses the literature review; Section 4 contains the articles conclusions
This article intends to summarize the most recent methodological and future directions, namely, a methodological proposal for the elab­
advances, with emphasis on the last decade, for the determination of oration of a multi-scale risk index.
indices of coastal risk assessment, stating and discussing them whenever
possible. It is also intended to provide a valid description of the key 2. Basics on concepts, definitions and methods for coastal risk
dimensions of heterogeneity within research on climate change assessment
vulnerability. That is, it guides how the different indices should be
designated, considering their scale and parameters used, which means This chapter presents the definitions of the most important concepts
that in some articles a new designation was given to their indices. It also that will be assumed throughout this review article.
proposes a guideline on how a multi-scale coastal risk index should be
developed, where it is clearly defined which parameters should be used. 2.1. Key concepts: from Hazard to adaptation
This review contributes to determine the gaps in knowledge on climate
change vulnerability of coastal areas and to identify the challenges that The assessment of coastal risk due to natural hazards induced by
need to be addressed in future research. climate change involves several concepts that must be clearly defined.
The manuscript is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the The concept of vulnerability/risk is defined differently in the various
characterization of different concepts and methods; Section 3 is divided scientific areas in which it is used (Brooks, 2003; Downing and

3
C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

Table 2 In the last three decades, several approaches have been developed to
Main differences between the three existing coastal risk assessment methods. assess the risk of the coastal zone due to sea-level rise. Among the most
Differentiating Index-based Decision Dynamic used, we can consider three major categories:
factors methods/Indicator Support Computational
based approach Systems Models (1) Index-based methods/Indicator-based approach: Based on the
Scales Spatial Resolution: Spatial Spatial Resolution: quantitative or qualitative assessment and the combination of
any spatial scale Resolution: local to national or several parameters. They express vulnerability through a set of
(depends on data regional global (depends on independent elements that characterize the coastal zone. The
availability). Temporal scale: the method).
Temporal scale: any any future Temporal scale: any
index can be done by aggregating a single value. The result is a
temporal scale. scenarios. temporal scale. combination of an index or specific indicators, usually expressed
Temporal scale: any by a mathematical formula that aggregates indices and/or in­
temporal scale dicators according to an appropriate set of weights.
Main drivers Coastal forcing: SLR, Coastal forcing: Coastal forcing: SLR
(2) Decision Support Systems (DSS): They can be considered an
of change tides, waves, erosion SLR, Storm (relative or not),
rates. Surge. erosion rates, tides, exploratory tool that allows for assessing the conditions of a
Physical: storm surge, system under a variety of scenarios and the consequences of
geomorphology, currents. different adaptation and mitigation measures. A DSS generally
elevation, coastal Physical: sea integrates several environmental models, also a database and
slope. defenses, sediment
Socioeconomic: patterns.
different assessment tools, connected to specific software.
population, Socioeconomic: (3) Methods based on dynamic computational models: They aim to
infrastructures, population growth, model the current and future conditions of geophysical, biolog­
cultural heritage, GDP growth. ical and/or socioeconomic processes. Given the complexity of the
property value.
models, these methods require appropriate software, as well as
Main data Data input depends Climatic data Climatic data and
input on key parameters and physical/ physical data. Some advanced scientific knowledge.
used to calculate the forcing methods require
Coastal Vulnerability parameters. field observations. Table 2 summarizes the main differences between the three existing
Index (CVI). coastal risk assessment methods.
Adaptation Not addressed by the It is possible to Depends on the
Coastal vulnerability assessments should adopt an integrated strat­
measures index. evaluate the method.
efficacy of egy taking into account environmental changes caused by climate
different change and other causes, socioeconomic advancements, and the in­
adaptation teractions between these elements (Ramieri et al., 2011). As such, and
measures due to
according to the summary in Table 2, it is clear why index-based
different SLR
scenarios. methods are the most common way of assessing coastal risk, since
Output Tables, maps, index Maps Depends on the these allow the use of any type of driver change (climatic and
method, but maps, non-climatic), unlike the others that have their limitations.
time-series These methods are extensively used and have some variations,
projections, and
including the coastal vulnerability index (e.g., Gornitz et al., 1991), the
graphical and
tables are usually multi-scale coastal vulnerability index (e.g. McLaughlin and Cooper,
outputs. 2010) and the composite vulnerability index (e.g., Szlafsztein and Sterr,
Software Does not require any Own open- Requires specific 2007). The Index-based methods make it possible to simplify parame­
specific software. source software. software.
ters, which are spatially represented by different data, being more easily
Examples CVI Index; DESYCO RACE; Delft3D;
methods Composite DIVA; SimCLIM
understood (McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010). The result is a combination
Vulnerability Index; of a specific index or indicators, usually expressed by a mathematical
Multi-scale CVI formula that aggregates indices and/or indicators according to an
appropriate set of weights.
Table 3 shows three approaches based on indices, a brief description
Patwardhan, 2004; Metzger et al., 2005; Hinkel and Klein, 2006; Füssel,
and some of their advantages and disadvantages.
2007; Ramieri et al., 2011; Mahapatra et al., 2013; Benassai et al., 2015;
Oloyede et al., 2021) and is directly related to other concepts, such as
2.2.2. The importance of spatial scale
danger, exposure, and adaptation.
The spatial scale for coastal risk assessment is a very important fac­
Since this article is specifically about the impact of SLR in coastal
tor, which authors should consider since the scale will determine the
areas, the definitions presented here are the ones that best fit this field of
spatial detail with which we assess coastal vulnerability and risk.
expertise (see Table 1).
Nguyen et al. (2016) state that “vulnerability is scale-dependent,
Hazards, vulnerability, and exposure may be susceptible to ambi­
across both space and time, as well as it is also spatially scale-depend­
guity, both in terms of magnitude and probability of occurrence. Each of
ent”, i.e., according to whether the research is conducted at the national,
these concepts may also change over time and space as a result of nat­
regional or local level.
ural, socioeconomic, and anthropogenic changes (i.e., with origin in
The different scales can be defined as global, national, regional or
human action).
local, and have some significant differences between them, as shown in
Fig. 3. Global coastal risk assessment allows for global policies. National-
2.2. Approaches and challenges scale studies are useful in determining high-priority areas for vulnera­
bility reduction or management and are intended to give a visual and
2.2.1. Existing methods spatial perspective to decision-makers and coastal managers
Existing methods for assessing coastal vulnerability and risk differ in (McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2016; Furlan et al.,
complexity, the number of processes included and applications at 2021). Studies on a regional scale could be used to establish setback lines
various scales and outcomes. However, whatever methods are used, the or hazard zones to control planning (McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010).
results should be easily integrated by policymakers into the adaptation This geographical approach enables the identification of hotspots or
planning process (Mcleod et al., 2010). critical vulnerable regions that demand priority attention and more

4
C. Rocha et al.
Table 3
Three approaches to the index-based method.
Approach Description
Coastal Can aggregate different parameters (hazard, physical
Vulnerability and socioeconomic), depending on the intended
Index (CVI) objective. Quantitative classification of the different
parameters is usually made (e.g., 1 - very low to 5 -
extreme).
Subsequently, the different parameters are integrated
into a single final index (with weighted aggregation or
not).
Composite This index applies the same principles as the CVI, with
Vulnerability the difference that it combines a set of parameters in
Index different categories. Each category forms an
(independent) index, where parameters are
aggregated according to an appropriate set of weights.
It thus makes it possible to assess the vulnerability of a
given location, according to different indices.
Multi-scale Coastal Different scales are defined: national, regional and
Vulnerability local. Where an index is created for each one of them,
Index which is complemented with three sub-indices that
allow defining: coastal forcing, coastal characteristics
(resilience and susceptibility) and socioeconomic
factors.
For each sub-index, depending on its scale, different
data are used, with different spatial resolutions, since
different scales tend to reflect different priorities and
the influence of a given variable can increase or
decrease depending on the scale used.
Fig. 3. Main differences between spatial resolution scales for coastal risk assessment.
local-scale evaluations to help on-the-spot decision-making. The local
scale allows better identification of critical areas and infrastructure
located in highly vulnerable zones, thus being able to better serve policy
and decision-making for comprehensive adaptation strategies. At higher
resolution scales, coastal systems and the parameters to be used can and
should be more detailed (Torresan et al., 2008).
The argument that there isn’t a universal index that can be used with
all scales is supported by McLaughlin and Cooper (2010). This is
essentially since the real level of risk or vulnerability of a given
geographic location can be hidden when analyzed using smaller-scale
mapping, as differences in geographic resolution and the availability
and quality of some parameters, which are directly linked to the spatial
resolution, can influence the results.
2.2.3. Data, parameters and visualization tools
Different components are considered and used in vulnerability and
risk assessments. This use is often related to the purpose of the study, its
spatial resolution as well as the data availability. Therefore, it can be
very tricky to select the appropriate coastal parameters for a specific
purpose. Existing studies have indicated that the number of parameters
used in CVI literature can vary drastically (McLaughlin and Cooper,
2010). Regardless, the parameters must be measurable, accessible,
transferable, easy to apply and not redundant (Birkmann, 2006). These
can also be quantitative or qualitative, depending on the context and the
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
Advantages (A)/Disadvantages (D) Reference
(A) Can be applied to various scales and spatial Gornitz et al., 1994; Thieler and
resolutions. Useful and easy-to-understand maps. Hammar-Klose, 1999; Ramieri et al.,
Good applicability in GIS. It doesn’t need specific 2011; Koroglu et al., 2019; Noor and
software or a hard computational effort. Abdul Maulud, 2022
(D) Does not provide specific elements for planning
adaptation strategies.
(A)/(D) Same as CVI. Ramieri et al., 2011; Noor and Abdul
Maulud, 2022; Roukounis and
Tsihrintzis, 2022
(A) Same as CVI. McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010; Satta
(D) It is heavily dependent on the availability of data et al., 2017
at each spatial scale. It does not provide specific
elements for planning adaptation strategies.
assessment of vulnerability or risk.
Therefore, the most common way of parametrization is to divide the
components of coastal vulnerability and risk into coastal forcing, coastal
characteristics, and socioeconomic parameters. This class division
makes it possible to evaluate different aspects, which are interconnected
and can be evaluated independently (Klein and Nicholls, 1999).
The coastal forcing component represents the nature of coastal
processes i.e., indicators that cause susceptibility to extreme sea level
scenarios (e.g., SLR projections, storm surge frequency, tidal range and
significant wave height). SLR component evaluates the potential of
longer-lasting and more frequent coastal floods (Pendleton et al.,
2010b). There are several approaches to this component: physical-based
models, probability based-models, machine learning models and artifi­
cial intelligence. However, physical-based models are deterministic
approaches to the hazard assessment (due to extreme events, erosion
and SLR), and since risk and vulnerability are probability-based func­
tions it requires a range of probabilities or variability that must be given
for all their parameters. New processes based on machine learning or
artificial intelligence have not yet been used in the index assessment
approach, since they are quite complex, which is the opposite of the
objective of applying coastal indices.
Coastal characteristics consider the physical characteristics of a
coastal system and its inherent resistance or erodibility, i.e., it essen­
tially makes possible the probability assessment of coastal erosion
5
C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

(Pendleton et al., 2010a). According to VanZomeren and

2) Mean area flooded (%), mean flood depth (m), mean flood risk index.
3) Land projected to be below the tideline in 2100 depending on different
reached through combinations of sea level rise, tides, and storm surge.
Acevedo-Mackey (2019), parameters that result from coastal processes

projection type, year, pollution pathway or sea-level scenario, luck

2) A water level (in feet or meters) above the high tide line could be
that occur on longer time scales are normally used (e.g., geomorphology,
1) Land projected to be below annual flood level on different years.

6) Land projected to be below annual flood level, depending on the

warming scenarios (increasing temperature) affect sea level rise.

4) Mean distance from the coastline (m), mean erosion risk index.
7) Affordable housing at risk of flooding (only available for U.S.).
5) Threats from Antarctic or Greenland ice loss, in feet or meters.
geology, shoreline type, Shoreline displacement, elevation, slope,

4) Comparison with different temperatures: long-term sea level

orientation, distance to the coastline, river mouth, bathymetry, sea de­

1) Extreme sea level in 2100 for each coastal segment along

fenses). When Indices are applied, parameters such as sedimentation
and salinity are not usually used since they are applied at a local scale

5) Erosion risk index at each World Heritage site.

and require some hydrodynamic modeling. Thus, these parameters can

3) Flood risk index at each World Heritage site.

Mediterranean Low Elevation Coastal Zone.
and should be used when applying the Dynamic Computational Models
Method.
The socioeconomic component is very important in vulnerability
and sea-level projection source. assessment. This component reflects the distribution of the respective
damage impact of such climatic changes on society. The social and
economic variations of a coastal system occur more frequently and
Layers/Results available

rapidly than the other components. This component often contains so­
cial and economic parameters (e.g., population, cultural heritage, roads,
land use, infrastructures, ecological spots, tourism, economic activities,
outcomes.

economic value of site, GDP). Due to the difficulties in obtaining and

classifying this type of data, this component is sometimes omitted in the
indices.
The data to be used in the vulnerability/risk assessment must have
the best quality and the higher spatial resolution possible. Ideally, all
Spatial (S)/Temporal (T) Resolution

parameters, at whatever scale, should be based on local-level informa­

tion and not on the global-level. However, it is known that this is
(T) between 2030 and 2100

(T) between 2020 and 2100

implausible in most cases, although there is increasing access to better

quality, updated open data. It is important to mention that the same
(S) ~ 90 m SRTM DEM
(S) 30 m Coastal DEM

variable can be used in different scales studies, however, its influence

may be different.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been widely used for
data merging and manipulation, as well as for producing different maps
for visualization. This technology allows for identifying the spatial dis­
tribution of hazards and vulnerability (Yohe and Tol, 2002; O’Brien
et al., 2004; Brooks et al., 2005; Ebert et al., 2009). Furthermore, the
1) IPCC scenarios (RCP2.6,

research demonstrates GIS’s capacity to analyze vulnerability at multi­

ple scales through an available set of tools. This is a great advantageous
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5)

because the resolution and breadth of research can include data with
SLR Projections

1) AR6 (IPCC).

both small and large geographical extents (Cutter et al., 2003). GIS also
allows the development of visualization tools (e.g., NOAA Sea level Rise
2) NOAA

Viewer, 2011; Antunes et al., 2017 on SNMPortugal web platform;

Climate Central’s Coastal Risk Screening Tool, 2021), which are intui­
tive and better understood by a common user. These tools explore
UNESCO World Heritage sites

coastal flooding scenarios over various periods, to alert and sensitize the
population to this issue as well as help community planners. They are a
Geographical extension

great starting point for more detailed studies in areas that have been
identified as the most critical and urgent for prevention.
Characterization of the Flooding studies mentioned in subchapter 3.1.

3. Coastal risk assessment: literature review

worldwide

This review only analyses studies published in the last decade, that
sought to make a coastal assessment due to SLR scenarios. As a caveat, it
Global

should be mentioned that depending on the objective of the study, and

Local
Scale

due to the applied spatial scale and available data, there are different
strategies to approach the problem, as will be demonstrated throughout
Mediterranean UNESCO World

this chapter.
Due to the vast number of publications related to this topic, this
Climate Central’s Coastal

chapter mentions only a subset of the most relevant works in this field in
Climate Central (2021)

Reimann et al. (2018)

Risk Screening Tool

the last decade. The authors intend to show the studies first in order of
geographical scale (global, national, regional, local) and then in chro­
Heritage at risk

nological order, and the same is applied to the summaries made in

Tables 4–6.

3.1. Coastal vulnerability and risk assessment

Flooding

Vulnerability or risk indices allow for identifying and even priori­

Table 4a

Study

tizing susceptible regions or places to SLR, thus becoming a tool for

defining, monitoring and awareness-raising strategies (Nguyen et al.,

6
 C. Rocha et al.
Table 4b
Characterization of the Physical studies mentioned in subchapter 3.1.
Study Scale Geographical Spatial (S)/ Parameters Formulas/Weight Output/Ranking of
extension Temporal (T) Index
Resolution

Physical Coastal Vulnerability National China (S) 3 s Physical: AHP for parameters: strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Sea Level Rise (mm/yr) – SLR; 2) Geomorphology (type) – G; 3) Coastal CVI = 31%*SLR + 9%*MTR + shoreline.
Yin et al. (2012) elevation (m) – CE; 4) Coastal slope (%) – CS; 5) Shoreline erosion (mm/yr) 10%*MWH + 11%*G + 19%*CE Very Low (1) to Very
– SE; 6) Land use (type) – LU; 7) Mean tide range (m) – MTR; 8) Mean wave + 3%*CS + 7%*SE + 10%*LU High (4)
height (m) – MWH
Coastal Vulnerability National Lithuania (S) 500 m grid Geologic: 1) square root of the product mean cells along the
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Historical shoreline change rate (m/yr) – HSC; 2) Beach width (m) – BW; 2) AHP for parameters: coastline.
Bagdanavičiūtė et al. 3) Beach height (m) – BH; 4) Beach sediments – BS; 5) Underwater slope CVI = 27.7%*HSC + 5.2%*US + Very Low (1) to Very
(2015) (tan a) – US; 6) Sand bars (underwater slope) – SB 11.2%*BW + 4.6%*BH + 29.7% High (5)
Physical Process: *SB + 3.6%*BS + 17.9%*MSW
1) Mean significant wave height (m) – MSWH
Coastal Vulnerability National Spain (S) undefined Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) 2100 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) Shoreline erosion/accretion (m/yr) 3) Slope shoreline.
Royo et al. (2016) (%); 4) Relative SLR (m); 5) Wave Climate (H2); 6) Mean tide range (m) Very Low (1) to Very
High (5)
Physical Vulnerability National Portugal (S) 20 m Coastal Forcing: AHP for parameters: spatialization of
Index (PVI) (T) 2050; 2100 1) Extreme Hazard Index (probabilistic flooding) – EFHI PVI = 34%*EFHI + 21%*HN + vulnerability.
Rocha et al. (2020) Physical: 15%*CT + 15%*DC + 8%*SG + Very Low (1) to Very
1) Hydrographic Network (distance and slope) – HN; 2) Distance to 4%*DG + 2%*LU High (5)
coastline (m) – DC; 3) Solid Geology (type) – SG; 4) Drift Geology (type) –
DG; 5) Land Use (type) – LU; 6) Coast type (type) – CT
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Syria (S) 10 m Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) 2100 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) Coastal slope (%); 3) SLR change (mm/yr); shoreline.
Faour et al. (2013) 4) Shoreline erosion/accretion (m); 5) Mean tide (m); 6) Wave ranges (m) Very Low (1) to Very
7

High (5)
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Gulf of Mannar, India (S) 90 m Geological: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Shoreline change rate (m/yr); 2) Beach width (m); 3) Regional elevation shoreline.
Parthasarathy and (m); 4) Slope (%); 5) Bathymetry (m); 6) Geomorphology (type) Low (1) to Very High
Natesan (2015) Physical: (4)
1) Sea-Level Change rate (mm/yr); 2) Mean tidal range (m); 3) Significant
wave height (m)
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Andhra Pradesh, India (S) 30 m Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Shoreline change (m); 2) Coastal slope (◦ ); 3) Elevation (m); 4) Mean Sea shoreline.
Basheer et al. (2016) level (m); 5) Mean tide range (m); 6) Mean wave height (m); Very Low (1) to Very
7) Geomorphology (type) High (5)
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Ganges, Bangladesh (S) 1 km grid cell Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) coastal slope (◦ ); 3) shoreline change rate (m/ shoreline.
Islam et al. (2016) yr); 4) rate of sea level change (m); 5) mean tide range (m); Very Low (1) to Very

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

6) bathymetry (m); 7) storm surge height (%) High (5)
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Southern Lebanese (S) 1 km Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) zone (T) n/a 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) Coastal Slope (%); 3) Relative rate of SLR shoreline.
Ghoussein et al. (2018) (mm/yr); 4) Erosion/Advancement (m/yr); 5) Average tidal range (m); Very Low (1) to Very
6) Average Wave height (m) High (5)
Integrated Coastal Regional Azores, Portugal (S) undefined Biophysical: ICVI = a + b + c + d + e + f strip along the
Vulnerability Index (T) n/a 1) Type of cliff (type); 2) Type of Beach (type) shoreline.
(ICVI) External forcing: Very Low (1) to Very
Ng et al. (2019) 1) Coastal defenses (%); 2) Exposure to swell/storm waves (%); 3) Outcrop High (5)
flooded (%)
Socioeconomic:
1) Land use (type)
(continued on next page)
 C. Rocha et al.
Table 4b (continued )
Study Scale Geographical Spatial (S)/ Parameters Formulas/Weight Output/Ranking of
extension Temporal (T) Index
Resolution

Coastal Vulnerability Regional Bangladesh (S) 1 km Physical: square root of the product mean box of segmentation
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Elevation (m); 2) Coastal Slope (%); 3) Geomorphology (type); 4) Storm along the shoreline.
Hoque et al. (2019) surge height (m); 5) Bathymetry (m); 6) Shoreline change rate (m/yr); Very Low (1) to Very
7) SLR (mm/yr); 8) Tide range (m) High (5)
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Andhra Pradesh, India (S) 500 m grid Physical: AHP for parameters: strip along the
Index (CVI) (T) n/a 1) Coastal Slope/contour (m) - CS; 2) Geomorphology (type) - G; CVI = 5.73%*SC + 10.15%*G + shoreline.
Baig et al. (2021) 3) Bathymetry (m) - B; 4) Shoreline change (m/yr) - SC; 5) Mean tidal range 16.47%*LU + 15.46%*MTR + Very Low to Very
(m) - MTR; 6) Land use/land cover (type) - LU 21.51%*CS + 30.68%*B High
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Bali Province, (S) 1 km grid Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) Indonesia (T) n/a 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) Shoreline change rate (m/yr); 3) Elevation shoreline.
Hastuti et al. (2022) (m); 4) SLR (mm/yr); 5) Tide range (m); 6) Significant wave height (m) Low to Very High
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Eastern Gulf of Finland (S) 5.5 km grid Geology: square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) coastal zone, the Baltic (T) n/a 1) Coastal geology (type) shoreline.
Kovaleva et al. (2022) Sea Geomorphology: Low, Medium, High
1) Coastal embayment (type); 2) Beach shape (type); 3) Underwater bars
8

(type); 4) Underwater slope (tan α)

Lithodynamics:
1) Beach elements (type)
Hydrometeorology:
1) Susceptibility to storm activity (n◦ )
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Subang Regency, (S) undefined Physical: 1) square root of the product mean strip along the
Index (CVI) Indonesia (T) n/a 1) Coastal relief (m) - CR; 2) Geomorphology (type) - G; 3) Shoreline change 2) AHP for parameters: shoreline.
Handiani et al. (2022) (m/yr) - SC; 4) Tidal range (m) - TR; 5) Sea-level change (mm/yr) - SLR; 6) CVI = 39%*CR + 30%*G + 13% Very Low to Very
Wave height (m) - WH; 7) Land subsidence (mm/yr) - LS; 8) Land use (type) *SC + 3%*TR + 6%*SLR + 5% High
- LU *WH + 3%*LS + 2%*LU
Coastal Vulnerability Local Croatian Eastern (S) 5 m Physical: square root of the product mean, strip along the
Index (CVI) Adriatic Coast (T) n/a 1) Geologic fabric (type); 2) Coastal Slope (◦ ); 3) Beach width (m); emphasizing the geological shoreline.
Ružić et al. (2019) 4) Significant Wave height, Hs (m); 5) Land use (type) fabric’s importance Very Low (1) to Very
High (5)

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

Coastal Vulnerability Local Ravenna province, (S) 1 km Physical: AHP for parameters: 36 segments
Index (CVI) Italy (T) n/a 1) Elevation (m) – E; 2) Dune coverage (%) – DC; 3) Shoreline covered by CVI = 39.1%*E + 24.5%*DC + approximate length
Sekovski et al. (2020) artificial protection structures (%) – SPS; 4) Recent shoreline change (m/yr) 16.7%*SPS + 21.5%*SC + 13.5% of 1 km.
– SC; 5) Land cover (type) – LC *LC Very Low (1) to Very
High (5)
 C. Rocha et al.
Table 5
Characterization of the Socioeconomic studies mentioned in subchapter 3.1.
Study Scale Geographical Spatial (S)/ Parameters Formulas/Weight Output/Ranking of Index
extension Temporal (T)
Resolution

Socioeconomic Index of Global East Africa (S) 1 km Index of Exposure: InVEST model cells along the coastline.
Vulnerability to (T) n/a 1) Relief (m); 2) Wave exposure; 3) Wind exposure; 4) Surge Low to Very High
Coastal Change potential;
(IVCC) 5) Natural habitats (class); 6) Shoreline change rate (m/yr)
Ballesteros and Esteves Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):
(2021) 1) Age (%); 2) Population growth (%) 3) Population density
(Inhab/km2); 4) Education (%); 5) Housing standards (%); 6)
Sanitation (%)
Coastal Risk (or National Lithuania (S) 500 m grid Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI): AHP for parameters: cells along the coastline.
Resilience) Index (T) n/a 1) Historical shoreline change rate (m/yr) – HSCR; 2) Beach CVI = 29.7%*SB + 27.7*HSCR + 17.9% Very Low (1) to Very High
(CRI) width (m) – BW; 3) Beach height (m) – BH; 4) Beach *MSWH + 11.2%*BW + 5.2%*US + 4.6% (5)
Bagdanavičiūtė et al. sediments – BS; 5) Underwater slope (tan a) – US; 6) Sand *BH + 3.6%*BS
(2018) bars (underwater slope) – SB; 7) Mean significant wave CEI = 33.5%*PD + 30.4%*BA + 13.1%*CH
height (m) – MSWH + 11.6%*TS + 11.4%*RF
Coastal Exposure Index (CEI): CRI = (CVI/CEI)/2
1) Population density (inhab/km2) – PD; 2) Built-up area
(km2) – BA;
3) Cultural heritage – CH; 4) Tourist spots (N◦ of photos) –
TS;
5) Recreational facilities – RF
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Between Porto de (S) undefined Physical Factors: Undefined. strip along the shoreline.
Martins et al. (2012) Mós and Falésia (T) n/a 1) Lithology (type); 2) Coastal systems (type); 3) Hydrology Very Low (1) to Very High
(type); (5)
9

4) Sediments supply (type)

Anthropic Factors:
1) Highway/Railway network; 2) Population density (Inhab/
km2);
3) Population growth 1991–2001 (%); 4) Urban Land Cover
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Puducherry coast, (S) 90 m Physical and Geological Vulnerability Index (PVI): AHP for parameters: strip along the shoreline.
Index (CVI) India (T) n/a 1) Coastal slope (◦ ) – CS; 2) Geomorphology (type) – G; 3) PVI = 38.25%*CS + 26.48%*G + 14.97*E + Very Low (1) to Very High
Murali et al. (2013) Elevation (m) – E; 4) Shoreline change (m/yr) – SC; 5) Sea 9.13%*SC + 5.53%*SLR +3.23*SWH (4)
level change (mm/yr) – SLR; +2.41%*TR
6) Significant wave height (m) – SWH; 7) Tidal range (m) – SVI = 65.89%*P + 21.72%*LU + 7.61%*RN
TR + 4.78%*CH
Social Vulnerability Index (SVI): CVI = (PVI+SVI)/2
1) Population (n◦ ) – P; 2) Land use/land cover (type) – LU; 3)

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

Road network (distance) – RN; 4) Cultural heritage (tourist
areas) – CH.
Coastal Risk Index Regional Yangtze Delta, (S) 30 m grid Physical: AHP for parameters: strip along the shoreline.
(CRI) China cell 1) Coastal elevation (%) – X1; 2) Coastal slope (◦ ) – X2; 3) Physical = 18.2%*X1 + 18.2%*X2 + 26.4% Very Low (1) to Very High
Li et al. (2015) (T) n/a Average annual deposit volume (m3/yr) – X3; 4) Shoreline *X3 + 10.4%*X4 + 2.3%*X5 + 2.3%*X6 + (5)
change rates (m/yr) – X4; 5) Tidal range (m) – X5; 6) 1.6%*X7 + 11.9%*X8 + 3.5%*X9 + 5.1%
Significant wave height (m) – X6; 7) Relative SLR (mm/yr) – *X10
X7; 8) Intertidal width (m) – X8; 9) Intertidal vegetation type Socioeconomic = 75.1%*Y1 + 17.8%*Y2 +
(type) – X9; 10) Intertidal vegetation zone width (m) – X10 7.0%*Y3
Socioeconomic: CRI = (Physical + Socioeconomic)/2
1) Population density (Inhab/km2) – Y1; 2) Land Use type
(type) – Y2;
3) Ecological hotspots (type) – Y3
(continued on next page)
 C. Rocha et al.
Table 5 (continued )
Study Scale Geographical Spatial (S)/ Parameters Formulas/Weight Output/Ranking of Index
extension Temporal (T)
Resolution

Integrated Coastal Regional South Gujarat, (S) 10 m Physical Vulnerability Index (PVI): AHP for parameters: strip along the shoreline.
Vulnerability Index India (T) n/a 1) Coastal geomorphology (type) – CG; 2) Coastal slope (%) – PVI = 47.23%*CS + 33.67%*CG + 10.53% Very Low (1) to Very High
(ICVI) CS; *SCR + 4.81%*MSTR + 3.73%*SWH (5)
Mahapatra et al. 3) Shoreline change rate (m/yr) – SCR; 4) Significant wave SVI = 60.25%*PD + 24.75%*LU + 9.75%
(2015) height (m) – SWH; 5) Mean spring tide range (m) – MSTR *RN + 5.25%*S
Social Vulnerability Index (SVI): ICVI = (PVI+SVI)/2
1) Population density (Inhab/km2) – PD; 2) Land use/land
cover (type) – LU;
3) Road network (distance from) – RN; 4) Settlement (type) –
S
Coastal Vulnerability Regional Karnataka state, (S) undefined Physical: square root of the product mean strip along the shoreline.
Index (CVI) India (T) n/a 1) Coastal Slope (%); 2) Mean tide range (m); 3) Elevation Very Low (1) to Very High
Jana and Hegde (m); (5)
(2016) 4) Shoreline change rate (m/yr); 5) Mean significant wave
height (m)
Socioeconomic:
1) Population (person per 200m2)
Integrated Coastal Regional Apulian region, (S) undefined Physical Vulnerability Index (PVI): AHP for parameters: Undefined weights. segments with 500 m.
Vulnerability Index Italy (T) n/a 1) Coastal Slope (%); 2) Coastal landforms/features (type); ICVI = (PVI+SVI)/2 Very Low (1) to Very High
(ICVI) 3) Significant wave height (m); 4) Shoreline change rate (m/ (4)
De Serio et al. (2018) yr); 5) Sea Level Rise (mm/yr); 6) Tidal range (m); 7) Coastal
Elevation (m)
Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):
1) Population (n◦ ); 2) Road networks (distance in km); 3)
10

Land use/land cover (type)

Integrated Coastal Regional
Vulnerability Index
(ICVI)
Behera et al. (2019)
Coastal Vulnerability Regional
Index (CVI)
Bera and Maiti (2021)
Odisha, India (S) undefined Social Vulnerability Index (SVI): AHP for parameters: 5 km buffer along the
(T) n/a 1) Population (n◦ ); 2) Infrastructure (present/absent); 3) The method was applied to the weight of the coastline.
Heritage importance (n◦ ) parameters depending on the location, that Extreme (1), Strong (2),
Geotechnical Vulnerability Index (GVI): is, each parameter will have a different Intermediate (3),
1) Soil type; 2) shear strength; 3) group index; 4) Free swell weight depending on the city. Moderate (4), Low (5),
index Least (6)
Physical Vulnerability Index (PVI):
1) Shoreline change rate (m/yr); 2) Tidal range (m); 3)
Coastal elevation (m); 4) Proximity to sea (m); 5) Significant
wave height (m); 6) SLR (mm/yr)
Sundarbans, (S) 500 m grid Physical: square root of the product mean cells along the coastline.
India (T) n/a 1) Absolute SLR (mm/yr); 2) Elevation (m); 3) Historical Very Low to Very High
erosion/accretion (m/yr); Geomorphology (class); Tidal

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

range (m)
Socioeconomic:
1) Population density (Inhab/km2)
Coastal Inundation Local Volturno plain, (S) 1 m Physical: CSI = PRICE + URICE + ERICE + U10km spatialization within the
Risk (CIR) Italy (T) 2065, 2100 1) Future Topography (based on the assumption that the CIR = Physical*CSI entire flood area.
Aucelli et al. (2017) subsidence trend will be kept constant in the near future); 2) Low (1) to Very High (4)
SLR scenarios (RCP2.6/RCP8.5) RICE - Radius of Influence of Coastal Erosion
Coastal Socioeconomic Value Index (CSI): and Flooding
1) PRICE - Population living in RICE; 2) URICE - % of urban
areas in RICE; 3) ERICE - % of areas of high ecological value
in RICE; 4) U10km - Urban increase % in 10 km radius
coastline
(continued on next page)
C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

2016). This sub-chapter refers 37 studies published in the last decade

carried out solely and exclusively in coastal areas of the open ocean

buffer along the coastline.

Very Low (1) to Very High
Output/Ranking of Index
coast, not including specific studies in specific natural environments (e.
g., tropical coral reefs, mangroves, temperature salt marshes, coastal
lagoons and estuaries), which are also threatened by SLR.
The following authors consider only physical parameters in their
indices, at different scales (global, national, regional or local). Table 4
(5)
summarizes the physical indices.
Yin et al. (2012) developed a national assessment for the Chinese
coast, developing an index called Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI),

CRI = (Vulnerability + Exposure + Hazard)/

Sensitivity = 39%*CT + 27%*A + 22%*R +

Vulnerability = (Sensitivity + Resilience)/2

Exposure = 44.6%*P + 23.7%*LU + 19%
using eight physical parameters, separated into two groups: i) oceanic
parameters: SLR, mean tide range and mean wave height; ii) terrestrial
parameters: geomorphology, elevation, slope, shoreline erosion and
Hazard = 68%*EEF + 32%*SLR

land use. The authors segmented the coast into a strip, and each variable
Resilience = 56%*L + 44%*C

was ranging into 4 classes from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high). The final
index was calculated by integrating a weighted rank using the Analytic
AHP for parameters:

Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.

*HS + 10.7%*RO
Formulas/Weight

Bagdanavičiūtė et al. (2015) create a CVI for the Lithuania coast in

the south-eastern Baltic Sea. The authors wanted to compare the results
12%*PH

of the index using two different methods for the selected parameters:
scenario i) all parameters contribute equally (square root of the product
3

mean) and; scenario ii) each variable may have a different contribution
(using AHP method). The CVI depends solely on ranging into 5 classes
1) Extreme events frequency (n◦ /yr) – EEF; 2) SLR rate (mm/
1) Population (inhab/km2) – P; 2) Land Use (type) – LU; 3)
Historical sites (Present/Absent) – HS; 4) Roads (Absent/

from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) of seven parameters (historical

(Present/Absent) – R; 4) Posidonia Herbarium (Present/
1) Coast type (type) – CT; 2) Altitude (m) – A; 3) Rivers

shoreline change rate, beach width, beach height, beach sediments,

1) Laws (Present/Absent) – L; 2) Citizenship (people

underwater slope and significant wave height). Considering the results

from scenario i) and scenario ii), respectively, resulting CVI (spatialized
by cells along the coast with a resolution of 500 m) revealed that 21%
and 32% of the coast is very high to highly vulnerable, 24% or 22% is
moderately and 50% or 41% have low to very low vulnerability. As the
authors conclude, scenario ii) is more realistic, since it considers the
expert judgment to assign the weights to the different parameters,
therefore, vulnerability levels will be different from scenario i).
A different approach was used by Royo et al. (2016), who calculated
awareness %) – C

a CVI for the peninsular coastline of Spain, considering the worst-case

Absent) – PH

scenario of 1 m SLR projection in 2100. The authors choose six pa­

Parameters

Sensitivity:

type) – RO
Resilience:

Exposure:

yr) – SLR

rameters (geomorphology, shoreline erosion/accretion, slope, wave

Hazards:

climate, mean tide gauge and SLR by 2100) and range into 5 classes (1 -
very low to 5 - very high).
Reimann et al. (2018) assess 49 Mediterranean UNESCO World
Heritage Sites (WHS) at risk of coastal flooding and erosion due to SLR,
Temporal (T)

(S) 25 m grid
Spatial (S)/

Resolution

under four scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP8.5 and the high-end sce­
(T) n/a

nario) until 2100. The authors concluded that 37 sites are at risk for a
100-year flood and 42 for present coastal erosion, which stresses the
urgency of adaptation in those locations.
For the Azores Archipelago in Portugal, Ng et al. (2019), elaborated
Bou Ismail Bay,

an Integrated Coastal Vulnerability Index (ICVI), which employed six

Geographical

representative parameters (type of cliff, type of beach, coastal defenses,

extension

Algeria

exposure to swell/storm waves, outcrop flooded and land-use). For each

of the 9 islands, segments were created according to their geo­
morphologic compartments. For each of them, the ICVI value was
calculated with the sum of, parameters and ranging into 5 classes (1 –
Local
Scale

very low to 5 – very high).

For Krk Island, Croatian Eastern Adriatic Coast, Ružić et al. (2019),
applied a CVI for the local rocky coast, using five parameters (geological
Coastal Risk Index

fabric, coastal slope, beach width and significant wave height). Each
Chaib et al. (2020)

parameter was classified into 5 classes (1 – very low to 5 – very high),

and the CVI was computed with the square root of the parameter’s
product, emphasizing the geological fabric’s importance.
(CRI)

Rocha et al. (2020) elaborated the first national study of the Physical
Vulnerability Index (PVI) from the Atlantic Coast of Mainland Portugal,
Table 5 (continued )

coastal areas that were previously identified in Antunes et al. (2019) for
2050 and 2100 extreme flood scenarios, as having a probability of
flooding. The authors used six physical parameters (hydrographic
network, coast type, distance to coastline, solid geology, drift geology
Study

and land use) and also used the AHP weight aggregation method. It is

11
 Table 6

C. Rocha et al.
Characterization of the Economic studies mentioned in subchapter 3.1.
Study Scale Geographical Spatial (S)/ Parameters Formulas/Weight Output/
extension Temporal (T) Ranking of
Resolution Index

Economic Coastal Global African Continent (S) 250 m Exposure: square root of the product mean buffer along the
Vulnerability (T) n/a 1) Topography (m); 2) Slope (%); 3) Proximity to coast (m); coastline
Index (CVI) 4) Urban population (%); 5) Land cover (type); 6) Very Low (1) to
El-;Shahat et al. Accessibility (min); 7) Soil types (type); 8) Elements at risk Very High (5)
(2021) (ind.)
Sensitivity:
1) Vegetation percent (%); 2) Vegetation (type); 3) Natural
resources sensitivity (ind.); 4) Growth rate (%)
Resilience:
1) Human capital (ind.); 2) Financial capital (ind.); 3)
Institutional capital (ind.); 4) Infrastructure (ind.); 5)
Household technology (ind.)
Multi-dimensional National Italy (S) undefined Coastal Forcing Sub-Index (CFSI): CVI = (CFSI+ENSI+SOSI+ECSI)/4 strip along the
Coastal (T) 2050 1) Extreme sea level (m) shoreline.
Vulnerability Environmental Sub-Index (ENSI): Very Low to
Index (MDim-CVI) 1) Shoreline evolution trend (%); 2) Distance from Very High
Furlan et al. (2021) shoreline (m); 3) Coastal slope (%); 4) Elevation (m); 5)
Geological coastal types (%); 6) Land roughness (type); 7)
Conservation designation (type); 8) Coastal protection
structures (%)
Social Sub-Index (SOSI):
1) People younger than 5 years (n◦ ); 2) People older than 65
years (n◦ )
Economic Sub-Index (ECSI):
1) Land use patterns (type); 2) GDP per capita (US$)
12

Coastal Economic Regional Gulf of Mexico, USA (S) 30 m grid Physical (CVI): CVI: square root of the product mean. all parameters were strip along the
Vulnerability cell 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) Historical shoreline change combined using linear aggregation, which is defined as the shoreline.
Index (CEVI) (T) n/a rate (m/yr); sum of standardized parameters, resulting in a single CEVI Very Low (1) to
Thatcher et al. 3) Regional coastal slope (%); 4) Relative sea-level change value for each 1-km segment of shoreline. Very High (5)
(2013) (mm/yr);
5) Mean significant wave height (m); 6) Mean tidal range
(m).
Economic and Population Parameters:
1) Infrastructure building value ($); 2) Commercial
building value ($); 3) Residential building value ($); 4)
Population density; 5) Urban pixel density
Coastal Risk Index Regional Mediterranean (S) 30 m grid Coastal Hazard (CH) Sub-Index: CH = SLR=35%*SLR + 0.25%*SWR + 10%*DRO + 20% cells along the
(CRI) coastal zones cells 1) Population growth (%) – PGR; 2) Tourist arrivals (%) – *PGR + 10%*TOUR coastline.
Satta et al. (2017) (T) n/a TOUR; 3) Sea Level Rate (mm/yr) – SLR; 4) Storms (cm) – CV = 25%*LF + 25%*ELE = 25% + 15%*ROU + 10%*P65 Extremely Low

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

SWR; 5) Droughts (mm) – DRO + 10%*EDU + 10%*GDP (1) to Extremely
Coastal Vulnerability (CV) Sub-Index: CE = 70%*LC + 30%*PDE High (5)
1) Landform (type) – LF; 2) Elevation (%) – ELE; 3) CRI = CH*CV*CE
Roughness (n) – ROU; 4) Education level (%) – EDU; 5)
Population over 65 (%) – P65; 6) Gross Domestic Product
per capita (US$) – GDP
Coastal Exposure (CE) Sub-Index:
1) Land Cover (type) – LC; 2) Population density (inhab/
km2) – PDE
Combined Coastal Local eleven UK sites (S) 50 m Physical Coastal Vulnerability Index (PCVI): PCVI = sum of parameters 11 coastal
Vulnerability (T) n/a 1) Beach width (m) 2) Dune Width (m); 3) Coastal Slope FCVI = sum of parameters hotspots of the
Index (CCVI) (%); 4) Distance of vegetation behind the back beach (m); CCVI = [(PVCI/n) + (FCVI/n)]/2 UK.
Kantamaneni et al. 5) Distance of built structures behind the back beach (m); Very Low (1) to
(2018) 6) Rocky outcrop (%); 7) Sea defenses (%) Very High (5)
(continued on next page)
 C. Rocha et al.
Table 6 (continued )
Study Scale Geographical Spatial (S)/ Parameters Formulas/Weight Output/
extension Temporal (T) Ranking of
Resolution Index

Fiscal Coastal Vulnerability Index (FCVI)(millions):

1) Commercial properties; 2) Residential properties; 3)
Economic value of site; 4) Population; 5) Coastal Erosion;
6) Flood event impact
Coastal Local Xiamen, China (S) 30 m Coastal Characteristics: AHP for parameters: Undefined weights. strip along the
Vulnerability (T) n/a 1) Geomorphology (type); 2) Coastal elevation (m); 3) shoreline.
Index (CVI) Coastal slope (◦ ); Very Low (1) to
Zhu et al. (2018) 4) Coastal natural habitat (type); 5) Coastal buffer ability Very High (5)
(m)
Coastal Forcing:
1) Significant wave height (m); 2) Storms (n◦ )
Coastal Infrastructure:
1) Values of roads (n◦ ); 2) Values of buildings (n◦ ); 3)
Population activity
Disaster reduction:
1) Fiscal revenue (Billion yuan); 2) GDP (ten thousand
yuan)
Coastal Territorial Local lhavo, Cova Gala and (S) undefined Morphological vulnerability (Mv): CTVI = Mv + Lv + Bv + PAv at the parish
Vulnerability São Pedro de Moel, (T) n/a 1) Morphology (type); 2) Slope (◦ ); 3) Natural protection level
Index (CTVI) Portugal elements (type); 4) Artificial protection infrastructures Very Low (<-1
Barros et al. (2022) (type); 5) Distance to coastline (m); 6) Consolidation of SD) to Very
geological materials (type) High (≥1 SD)
Land value vulnerability (Lv):
13

1) Land Use (type); 2) Tax property location (type);

Buildings vulnerability (Bv):
1) Construction material (type); 2) Hydrodynamics of R/C
(type);
3) Number of floors (type); 4) Existence of underground
floors (type);
5) Preservation conditions (type); 6) Occupation form
(type); 7) Daily visitors or Residents per unit (n◦ ); 8) Units
for use (n◦ ); 9) Floating occupation (type); 10) Sensitive or
vital element (type)
Public areas vulnerability (PAv):
1) Vital energy infrastructure; 2) Vital maritime and river
infrastructure (type); 3) Vital telecommunications
infrastructure (type); 4) Sensitive or vital element in

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

education area (type); 5) Sensitive or vital element in the
environmental area (type); 6) Sensitive or vital element in
the administration area (type); 7) Urban furniture (type); 8)
Squares and communication routes (type); 9) Gardens and
leisure spaces (type); 10) Occupation form (type); 11)
Floating occupation (type); 12) Relevance of space for
mobility in the surrounding area (type); 13) Presence of
moving objects between the coastline and buildings (type);
14) Vehicles occupation form (type)
C. Rocha et al.
Fig. 4. Representative diagram of the relationship between the concepts associated with the present investigation and different Indices that can be elaborated.
anticipated that there would be 903 and 1146 km2 classified as a
vulnerable area in 2050 and 2100, respectively. The major difference
between this study and the ones mentioned above is the spatialization of
the index, i.e., it classifies the areas spatially discretized that are esti­
mated to be flooded, allowing the representation of the spatial vari­
ability of the flood in each geographic area, thus constituting an
advantage over all the others approaches.
Sekovski et al. (2020) proposed an easy-to-use CVI on 36 coastal
segments (with 1 km length) of the province of Ravenna in Italy, using
five physical parameters (elevation, dunes, artificial protection struc­
tures, shoreline change rates, and land cover). Each of them received a
weight defined by the AHP method and vulnerability scores were then
normalized to a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
Climate Central’s Coastal Risk Screening Tool (2021) has a global
coverage (i.e., worldwide coverage) and shows areas threatened by
sea-level rise and coastal flooding. The maps are based on the latest IPCC
SLR projections and used a high-accuracy digital elevation model (DEM)
for coastal areas. The results derive from a deterministic approach
(“bathtub approach”) and the viewer allows the evaluation of two
different sets of results for flooding areas: i) for a specific SLR (e.g., SLR
of 0.5 m, 1.0 m, etc.) or; ii) for a SLR projection in each year according to
the different projections (e.g., 2030, 2050, etc.).
Baig et al. (2021) applied a CVI along the Vishakhapatnam Coastal
Tract, Andhra Pradesh, India, using six physical parameters (geo­
morphology, tidal height, bathymetry, shoreline, slope and land use/­
land cover), that were prepared using the multi-temporal datasets of
1991, 2001, 2011 and 2018. The authors compare the CVI results using
two methods: the square root of the product of the parameters and the
AHP method.
There are other studies that have used only physical parameters,
classifying them individually in an interval (e.g., from 1 - very low to 5 -
very high), and in which the final CVI was calculated by the square root
of the product mean, giving the same importance for each variable
considered. These studies are done on a national scale (e.g., Hoque et al.,
2019) or a regional scale (e.g., Faour et al., 2013; Parthasarathy and
Natesan, 2015; Basheer et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2016; Jana and Hegde,
2016; Ghoussein et al., 2018; Hastuti et al., 2022; Kovaleva et al., 2022;
Handiani et al., 2022)
The use of socioeconomic parameters is more easily applicable when
we increase the resolution scale of the indices, or when we decrease the
area to be studied. Since the larger the scale, the more accurate data
must be. Table 5 summarizes the socioeconomic indices.
Ballesteros and Esteves (2021), developed an Index of Vulnerability
14
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
to Coastal Change (IVCC) for East Africa, integrating indices of social
vulnerability and exposure to coastal risks, to identify “areas of priority
concern”. The authors combined an Exposure Index (IE), using six pa­
rameters (relief, waves exposure, wind exposure, surge potential, nat­
ural habitats and shoreline change rates) with a Social Vulnerability
Index (SVI), using five parameters (age, population growth and density,
education, housing standards and sanitation). They found that 22% of
East Africa coast and 3.5 million people are at higher levels of exposure
to coastal hazards.
Bagdanavičiūtė et al. (2018) despite being a national study for
Lithuania, it studies a small area (about 45 km along a coastal section).
The authors create a Coastal Risk (or Resilience) Index (CRI) and added
five exposure parameters (population density, built-up area, cultural
heritage, tourist spots, recreational facilities) to the previously calcu­
lated (physical) CVI. The AHP method was applied to calculate the pa­
rameters weights and the GIS multi-criteria evaluation approach to
calculate the CRI values. The result is given in intervals of 1 (very low) to
5 (very high), along with cells with 500 m.
Sociodemographic data such as population, communication routes,
tourist areas and/or ecological areas are parameters that are heavily
used on a regional scale (e.g., Martins et al., 2012; Murali et al., 2013; Li
et al., 2015; Mahapatra et al., 2015; Jana and Hegde, 2016; De Serio
et al., 2018; Behera et al., 2019; Bera and Maiti, 2021), or a local scale
(e.g., Aucelli et al., 2017; Chaib et al., 2020).
On the other hand, some authors want to give economic input to
their studies and insert some parameters that bring them closer to a
more complete risk assessment. The following studies are good examples
of this. Table 6 summarizes the economic indices.
Thatcher et al. (2013) applies to the north of the Gulf of Mexico a
Coastal Economic Vulnerability Index (CEVI), including physical factors
(geomorphology, historical shoreline change rate, regional coastal
slope, relative SLR, mean significant wave height and mean tidal range)
and economic factors (infrastructure building value, commercial build­
ing value, residential building value, population density and urban pixel
density). All parameters were combined and standardized for each 1 km
segment of the shoreline.
For all Mediterranean coastal zones (21 countries), a Coastal Risk
Index (CRI) was created by Satta et al. (2017), using thirteen parameters
divided into three sub-indices: i) Coastal Hazard Sub-Index (population
growth, tourist arrivals, SLR, storms and droughts); ii) Coastal Vulner­
ability Sub-Index (landform, elevation, roughness, education level,
population over 65 and gross domestic product per capita); and iii)
Coastal Exposure Sub-Index (land cover and population density). Since it
C. Rocha et al.
is such an extensive area, the data come mostly from global datasets (e.
g., World Bank Open Data, Center for International Earth Science In­
formation Network – CIESIN). Each parameter was rated on a scale of
1–5 and weighted accordingly to scientific and technical reports. The
CRI map is spatially represented in five risk levels (from extremely low
to extremely high).
Kantamaneni et al. (2018) integrates for 11 UK sites, two different
indices into a Combined Coastal Vulnerability Index (CCVI), where its
calculation is given by the sum of parameters. The Physical Coastal
Vulnerability Index (PCVI) is composed of 7 parameters and the fiscal
Coastal Vulnerability Index (FCVI) used 6. The final CCVI is given by a
classification from 1 (extremely low) to 5 (extremely high).
For the Xiamen coast, Zhu et al. (2018) created a CVI in which, in
addition to the commonly used parameters, they add the fiscal revenue
and the GDP per capita into a group of parameters that the authors call
disaster reduction. When an area is threatened, the capacity and eco­
nomic intervention is mostly reflected at the governmental level. The
authors also rated the parameters on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very
high) and applied the AHP method to create the index. However, they do
not mention the weights given to each parameter.
El-Shahat et al. (2021) customize a CVI for the African coastal zone
to include seventeen parameters grouped into exposure (topography,
slope, proximity to coast, urban population, land cover, accessibility,
soil types and elements at risk), sensitivity (vegetation percent, vege­
tation type, natural resources sensitivity, growth rate) and resilience
(human capital, financial capital, institutional capital, infrastructure
and household technology). Each index was calculated as the square
root of the product mean.
For the Italian coast, Furlan et al. (2021) have developed a
Multi-Dimensional Coastal Vulnerability Index (MDim-CVI). The com­
bined CVI has 4 sub-indices that contain different parameters: Coastal
Forcing Sub-Index (extreme sea level), Environmental Sub-Index
(shoreline evolution trend, distance from shoreline, coastal slope
elevation, geological coastal types, land roughness, conservation
designation, coastal protection structures), Social Sub-Index (people
younger than 5 years, people older than 65 years) and Economic
Sub-Index (land use patterns, GDP per capita). The MDim-CVI calcula­
tion derives from the integration of all the sub-indices under the refer­
ence and future 2050 scenarios.
In a local scale approach, Barros et al. (2022) have proposed a Coastal
Territorial Vulnerability Index (CTVI) for three areas of mainland
Portugal (lhavo, Cova Gala and São Pedro de Moel). The CTVI is calcu­
lated through the sum of 4 components (morphological assessment, land
value assessment, buildings assessment and public areas assessment)
which contains a total of 33 parameters. Weights were assigned to each
variable using the M-Macbeth multi-criteria analysis software. In the end,
they elaborated vulnerability maps for each of the components and the
CTVI in each of the study areas, on a scale from very low to very high.
4. Discussion
When coastal risk indices are mentioned in the scientific bibliog­
raphy, several designations and definitions are considered, as this
concept is not standardized. The most common designation is CVI (78%)
rather than others, considering the studies evaluated in this review. The
differences are dependent of the used parameters, and it is evident that
the term is often misused.
Gornitz et al. (1994) and McLaughlin and Cooper (2010) warned that
the omission of demographic or economic factors in the vulnerability
and/or risk index can potentially limit the assessment of areas vulner­
able to SLR. Thereby, indices that consider only physical parameters do
not effectively analyze coastal vulnerability, but instead, they analyze
coastal sensitivity (Shaw et al., 1998; Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2010),
which refers to the susceptibility to allow dealing with vulnerability.
To develop a CVI, coastal forcing, physical and socioeconomic pa­
rameters must also be considered. On the other hand, the calculation of a
15
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
CRI should incorporate and must be a combination of four components
(Benassai et al., 2015; Aucelli et al., 2017; Christie et al., 2018): i)
hazard i.e., coastal forcing; ii) the physical component; iii) the socio­
economic component and; iv) the potential damage caused by coastal
flooding. As such, the framework in Fig. 4 crosses the concepts presented
in sub-chapter 2.1 and the explanation given above clarifies what type of
parameters should be considered in each index. Henceforth this frame­
work will serve as the base for all analyses carried out on the 37 studies
presented in 3.1.
In the present review, the absence of a specific framework for the
selection of parameters was identified, especially regarding socioeco­
nomic and economic factors. In most of the case studies, parameters have
been chosen while taking the author’s goals and the data availability. In
64.9%, which corresponds to 24 of the studies, coastal forcing parameters
were used, but less than half (18 studies) used socioeconomic parameters,
and only 7 used economic damage parameters. A constraint found in
studies of vulnerability or risk assessment is the lack of harmonization of
the name of the parameters used. For example, the hydrographic network
is often found as hydrology or river, and yet, when we look at what the
authors mean, they correspond exactly to the same. The same happens
with the parameters of shoreline change and shoreline erosion, or of
coastal elevation and coastal relief, among others.
Since it is the use of certain parameters that defines the type of the
calculated index, it is important to harmonize both the name and the
component they represent. It was found that in 31 studies (83.8%), the
index designation given by the respective authors is not in agreement
with that assumed here. Of the 29 studies that are assigned as CVI, only 7
of them actually are. This is mainly because only physical parameters are
used to calculate the index. As such, from the list, we have identified only
13 PVI. Another fact is that the authors who do not use any coastal forcing
parameter name their indices as CVI, and this is incorrect. Examples like
Ng et al. (2019), Ružić et al. (2019), Sekovski et al. (2020), Baig et al.
(2021) and Kovaleva et al. (2022) are proof of that. If they only consider
the physical component of the location where the study is performed,
which corresponds to the physical susceptibility of the terrain, they
should call it PSI. There are 4 studies (Li et al., 2015; Satta et al., 2017;
Bagdanavičiūtė et al., 2018; Chaib et al., 2020) in which the authors titled
their indices as CRI, but only the study of Satta et al. (2017) could claim
such, as they use the full range of necessary parameters. On the other
hand, the studies by Thatcher et al. (2013) and Furlan et al. (2021), are
CRI and the authors did not name it as they should.
Regarding the aggregation method of the various parameters,
weighting them is the most used (45.9%), either by the AHP method or by
a kind of arbitrary weighing, this demonstrates the authors’ sensitivity in
assuming that not all the parameters have the same contribution to the
SLR vulnerability and/or risk. However, the method of calculating the
index using the square root continues to be widely used (16 studies). This
may be because the authors find it easier to do in this way and because the
multi-criteria analysis methods can be a little complicated to implement.
It was also observed that practically all the studies (34, i.e., 94.6%)
show the absence of previous areas classified as being flooded or not
flooded, and the methodology is applied equally to both cases, with the
consequent risk of considering non-flooded areas as very vulnerable.
Consequently, this influences how vulnerability or risk results are pre­
sented. More than 85% of the exemplified studies used a constant strip
along the coast, cells, segments or specific points in their assessment. If
the coastal zone is segmented into sectors of equal lengths (e.g., 500 m)
or cells or points, and for each one, the index is determined considering
the specific parameters selected, the index is calculated only at that
location, ignoring its neighborhood. This representation has a major
disadvantage, which is the inability to represent the spatial variability of
the index within each sector, which results in the lack of detailed spatial
data compared to studies that correctly spatialize the indexes.
Regarding the results of the produced cartography in the studies, the
authors tend to show only the cartography of the final index. Perhaps it
would be interesting to have a demonstration of the intermediate
C. Rocha et al.
Fig. 5. Indices proposal, in a multi-scale approach.
indices, if that is the case, since they may have different results from the
calculated index. For example, in a CRI, supposedly all sub-indices can
be calculated, and a zone that has an extreme hazard classification may
end up with a low-risk index if it does not have any valuable element
exposed to risk.
As assumed in Fig. 4, Appendix A has the classification of analyzed
studies, according to the used parameters, and, if necessary, each study
was assigned a new index designation. Appendix B summarizes for each of
them, what kind of parameters aggregation has been used, the cartography
and the outputs, which corresponds to the way the index is shown.
The economic component is often left out in the coastal risk assess­
ment when indices are applied, and the authors prefer to have this
component incorporated independently. When it is incorporated into
indices, authors have serious difficulties in spatializing it. This happens
because the data needed for these components are difficult to find, very
volatile and do not have a great spatial resolution. One of the most used
parameters is GDP, but this value, in addition to being a value of a global
or national scale, does not allow us to understand the monetary impact
when using finer resolution scales, as the case of a regional or local scale.
There is an effort to incorporate more regional and local parameters,
such as the value of different types of buildings, the impact on tourism in
terms of income and also the cost of the damaging impact of flood
events. The studies shown below, which are some examples of what has
been done independently of the evaluation by indices, show that this
component is in fact quite important and ambitious. However, they are
good examples of how their calculation methodologies can be applied
and incorporated when calculating the coastal risk index in different
spatial scales: i) global (e.g., Hinkel et al., 2014; Jevrejeva et al., 2018;
Schinko et al., 2020); ii) national (e.g., Peric and Grdic, 2015; Huizinga
et al., 2017; Bevacqua et al., 2018; Abadie et al., 2020; Nakajima et al.,
2020; Desmet et al., 2021; Hauer et al., 2021); iii) regional or local (e.g.,
16
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
Aerts et al., 2013; Hallegatte et al., 2013; Wei and Chatterjee, 2013;
Bhattachan et al., 2018; Prahl et al., 2018; Warren-Myers et al., 2018;
Ruiz-Ramírez et al., 2019; Abadie et al., 2020; Hummel et al., 2021); iv)
infrastructure (e.g., Becker et al., 2012; Huizinga et al., 2017; Aerts
et al., 2018; Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018; Baučić, 2020; Mers­
chroth et al., 2020; Fuerst and Warren-Myers, 2021).
5. Conclusions and future directions
This article was prepared with two objectives: first, to clearly define
the concepts inherent to coastal risk assessment and second, to show and
analyze a sample of studies from the last decade that sought to assess the
impacts of SLR scenarios in the best possible way. These two objectives
are strongly correlated since when analyzing the different indices, it is
noticeable that there are several designations for the same objective
since the concepts are not standardized.
Considering that the existing methods to assess vulnerability and
coastal risk differ in complexity, the number of processes included and
applications in various scales and outcomes, the absence of a specific
structure for the selection of parameters is notorious.
It is recommended that coastal risk assessments include an integrated
approach that considers the environmental changes, socioeconomic
developments, and the interactions between these elements. It is
important to define the purpose of the study. Although we know that
studies are often dependent on the existing or available data, issues such
as: What is the purpose of the study? What data is available? What
spatial rigor is needed? What kind of validation will be done? What is
the possible spatial resolution? - must be answered before starting any
assessment, always keeping in mind that different scales reflect different
priorities, and different results and data may contain different infor­
mation when presented at different scales.
C. Rocha et al.
5.1. How should the coastal risk index be prepared? A multi-scale
proposal guideline
Typically, indices are developed in sequential steps, the following
steps are common, regardless of the objective: first, the indicators must be
selected (e.g. physical, socioeconomic, etc.), then all the normalization
processes must be carried out (e.g. all final data need to have the same
interval range or need to be patronized), then a process of aggregation of
parameters is chosen (e.g. square root of the product mean, arithmetic or
geometric averages, sum of standardized parameters, multicriteria
method) and finally, the intended indices can be elaborated.
The indices at different spatial scales involve different degrees of
simplification and aggregation of both data and results. It is also
important to emphasize that, although the same parameter can be used
at different scales, its geographical representation, as well as its evalu­
ation and classification, may change when the index is evaluated for
each different scale (e.g., population and infrastructure).
The following physical parameters are therefore suggested:
⁃ The Hydrography refers to a combination of the slope of the terrain
(obtained from the digital terrain model (DTM)) with the distance to
the hydrographic network, since a river that is in a valley with a
considerable slope presents a low vulnerability, unlike a river that is
in a low lying plain, where the slope is relatively small.
⁃ The Type of Coast varies according to the nature and type of its rocky
materials (e.g., beaches, hard rock, sandy cliffs, etc.).
⁃ Distance to the Coastline is an important factor in this analysis since
susceptibility increases with proximity to the zone of sea interaction.
Under normal conditions, a location close to the coastline is more
subject to the energetic forces of the sea, thus, as this distance in­
creases, the vulnerability to erosion and coastal flooding decreases.
⁃ The Geomorphology makes it possible to assess the nature of the
rocks and sediments that make up the coastal region, and to make a
classification based on the behavior of these materials when sub­
jected to the forcing action of the sea, such as waves, tides and
currents (Coelho et al., 2006).
⁃ Erosion and accretion rates indicate the history of shoreline varia­
tion, serving as a basis for their future projections in response to the
SLR (Gornitz et al., 1994).
⁃ The presence of Coastal Defenses and adhering structures make the
geographic area less susceptible to possible flooding, as they mitigate
local susceptibility.
⁃ Sanitation and Drainage Networks can increase local susceptibility if
they do not have protective mechanisms preventing underground
hydraulic connectivity, i.e., more remote and low-lying areas may be
susceptible to flooding.
The socioeconomic parameters for the different scales:
⁃ Population pressure is a crucial factor in coastal risk as people in
densely populated areas tend to act to protect their properties from
erosion and flooding as they are reluctant to abandon their homes,
land and infrastructure built up over the years. Geographical areas
where few people live may not experience the same pressure on the
environment or may not have the same resources for their protection.
However, the population can also be interpreted as a direct "erosion-
inducing" variable since the presence of large numbers of people near
the coast can produce harmful impacts on the coastal zone
(McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010).
⁃ Infrastructure is based on the location and density of properties with
active importance within society, whether is public or private (e.g.,
hospitals, public security infrastructure, schools, etc.) in which their
relocation and/or repair will have high costs.
17
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
⁃ Roads and Railways are considered in the routes parameter. They are
vital communication lines and one of the main means of mobility for
the population, and transport distribution networks of goods and
services. Due to its high cost of construction, maintenance and
repair, its partial destruction or damage in coastal areas that disable
their use implies a high financial effort (McLaughlin and Cooper,
2010). Thus, the routes can be classified based on the type and
importance of the existing roads and communication networks.
⁃ The Land Use reflects the different morphological behaviors, in the
case of a coastline covered with vegetation, paved or without any
type of coating. It is therefore considered that the greater the change
level of the natural state of soil covering, the greater its
susceptibility.
⁃ The Buildings, not included in the infrastructures, refer to the loca­
tion of the private properties of each citizen and certain institutional
services, private or public.
⁃ The Ecological Classification, aims to highlight the environmentally
protected areas with a clearly defined geographic space, recognized,
dedicated and managed through legal processes or effective means,
to achieve long-term preservation (Day et al., 2019).
⁃ The inclusion of a Cultural Heritage variable intends to demonstrate
important archaeological, historical, and cultural monuments, not
only in economic but also in social and cultural terms.
The damage parameter can be extremely difficult to obtain with the
maximum accuracy, as it is associated with a cost or a market value that
is dynamic. and sometimes volatile. Taking this added difficulty into
account, the following parameters are proposed for the calculation of
damage:
⁃ GDP represents the sum (in monetary values) of all goods and ser­
vices produced in a given region during a given period, thus quan­
tifying economic activity.
⁃ Tourism, as this is a fundamental economic activity, worldwide, for
the generation of wealth and employment, and an activity mostly
related to coastal zones, due to the presence of beaches and marine
activities (sports, leisure, fishing, etc.).
⁃ Tax Asset Value can be calculated based on the value of most urban
buildings (e.g., housing, commerce, industry, etc.).
Fig. 5 shows a multi-scale indices proposal, taking into account the
most used parameters in the scientific community of the coastal process.
Funding
This work was funded by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia (FCT) I.P./MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC) – UIDB/
50019/2022-IDL. Author Carolina Rocha was funded by the FCT I.P.
within the PhD fellowship 2020.04448.BD.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the careful reading and comments by anon­
ymous reviewers for improving the quality of the manuscript.
C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

Appendix A. Classification of studies, according to the parameters used

Study Index Parameters (new) Classification

Coastal Physical Socioeconomic Economic Index Match

Forcing

Yin et al. (2012) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Bagdanavičiūtė et al. (2015) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Royo et al. (2016) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Rocha et al. (2020) Physical Vulnerability Index (PVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index YES
(PVI)
Faour et al. (2013) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Parthasarathy and Natesan Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(2015) (PVI)
Basheer et al. (2016) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Islam et al. (2016) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Ghoussein et al. (2018) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Ng et al. (2019) Integrated Coastal Vulnerability Index X Physical Susceptibility Index NO
(CVI) (PSI)
Hoque et al. (2019) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Baig et al. (2021) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PSI)
Hastuti et al. (2022) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Kovaleva et al. (2022) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PSI)
Handiani et al. (2022) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Ružić et al. (2019) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PSI)
Sekovski et al. (2020) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PSI)
Ballesteros and Esteves Index of Vulnerability to Coastal Change X X Coastal Susceptibility Index NO
(2021) (CVI) (CSI)
Bagdanavičiūtė et al. (2018) Coastal Risk (or Resilience) Index (CRI) X X Coastal Susceptibility Index NO
(CSI)
Martins et al. (2012) Coastal Vulnerability (CVI) X X Coastal Susceptibility Index NO
(CSI)
Murali et al. (2013) Coastal Vulnerability (CVI) X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index YES
(CVI)
Li et al. (2015) Coastal Risk Index (CRI) X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index NO
(CVI)
Mahapatra et al. (2015) Integrated Coastal Vulnerability Index X X Coastal Susceptibility Index NO
(CVI) (CSI)
Jana and Hegde (2016) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X Coastal Susceptibility Index NO
(CSI)
De Serio et al. (2018) Integrated Coastal Vulnerability Index X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index YES
(CVI) (CVI)
Behera et al. (2019) Integrated Coastal Vulnerability Index X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index YES
(CVI) (CVI)
Bera and Maiti 2021 Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index YES
(CVI)
Aucelli et al. (2017) Coastal Inundation Risk (CHI) X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index NO
(CVI)
Chaib et al. (2020) Coastal Risk Index (CRI) X X X Coastal Vulnerability Index NO
(CVI)
El-;Shahat et al. (2021) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X X Coastal Susceptibility Index NO
(CSI)
Furlan et al. (2021) Multi-dimensional Coastal Vulnerability X X X X Coastal Risk Index (CRI) NO
Index (CVI)
Thatcher et al. (2013) Coastal Economic Vulnerability Index X X X X Coastal Risk Index (CRI) NO
(EDI)
Satta et al. (2017) Coastal Risk Index (CRI) X X X X Coastal Risk Index (CRI) YES
Kantamaneni et al. (2018) Combined Coastal Vulnerability Index X X Coastal Exposure Index (CEI) NO
(CVI)
Zhu et al. (2018) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) X X X Coastal Exposure Index (CEI) NO
Reimann et al. (2018) Flood Risk Index (CHI) X X Physical Vulnerability Index NO
(PVI)
Barros et al. (2022) Coastal Territorial Vulnerability Index X X X Coastal Exposure Index (CEI) NO
(CVI)

18
 C. Rocha et al.
Appendix B. Properties of each index. In column Cartography: (Elaborate: X; Possible: P)

Study Index Aggregation Cartography Output

Square Sum Multiplication Mean AHP Weights CHI PSI SSI EDI PVI SVI CVI CSI CEI CRI Strip or Cells Point Spatialization Buffer administrative
root Segment units
Yin et al. (2012) CVI X P P X X
Bagdanavičiūtė CVI X X X X X
et al. (2015)
Royo et al. CVI X P P X X
(2016)
Rocha et al. PVI X P P X X
(2020)
Faour et al. CVI X P P X X
(2013)
Parthasarathy CVI X P P X X
and Natesan
(2015)
Basheer et al. CVI X P P X X
(2016)
Islam et al. CVI X P P X X
(2016)
Ghoussein et al. CVI X P P X X
(2018)
Ng et al. (2019) CVI X X X
Hoque et al. CVI X P P X X
(2019)
Baig et al. CVI X X X
19

(2021)
Hastuti et al. CVI X P P X X
(2022)
Kovaleva et al. CVI X X X
(2022)
Handiani et al. CVI X X P P X X
(2022)
Ružić et al. CVI X X X X
(2019)
Sekovski et al. CVI X X X
(2020)
Ballesteros and CVI X P P X X
Esteves
(2021)
Bagdanavičiūtė CRI X X X X X X

Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

et al. (2018)
Martins et al. CVI P P X X
(2012)
Murali et al. CVI X X P X X X P X
(2013)
Li et al. (2015) CRI X X P X X X P X
Mahapatra et al. CVI X X X X X X
(2015)
Jana and Hegde CVI X P P X X
(2016)
De Serio et al. CVI X X P X X X P X
(2018)
Behera et al. CVI X P P P X P X
(2019)
(continued on next page)
 C. Rocha et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536

administrative References

Abadie, L.M., Sainz de Murieta, E., Galarraga, I., 2020. The costs of seasea-level rise:
coastal adaptation investments vs. Inaction in Iberian coastal cities. Water 12. http
units

s://doi.org/10.3390/w12041220.

X
Abuodha, P.A.O., Woodroffe, C.D., 2010. Assessing vulnerability to sea-level rise using a
coastal sensitivity index: a case study from southeast Australia. J. Coast Conserv. 14,
Buffer

189–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0097-0.
Aerts, J.C.J.H., Botzen, W.J.W., de Moel, H., Bowman, M., 2013. Cost estimates for flood
X

X resilience and protection strategies in New York city: flood management strategies
for New York city. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1294, 1–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Spatialization

nyas.12200.
Aerts, J.C.J.H., Barnard, P.L., Botzen, W., Grifman, P., Hart, J.F., De Moel, H., Mann, A.
N., de Ruig, L.T., Sadrpour, N., 2018. Pathways to resilience: adapting to sea level
rise in Los Angeles: sea level rise and flood risk in LA. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1427,
X

1–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13917.
Antunes, C., 2019. Assessment of Sea Level rise at west coast of Portugal mainland and its
Point

X projection for the 21st century. JMSE 7, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7030061.

X
Antunes, C., Rocha, C., Catita, C., 2017. Flood mapping and coastal vulnerability [WWW
Document]. Sea level Rise for Portugal. http://www.snmportugal.pt/index_EN.html.
Cells

accessed 2.3.22.
X

Antunes, C., Rocha, C., Catita, C., 2019. Coastal flood assessment due to Sea Level rise
and extreme storm events: a case study of the Atlantic coast of Portugal’s mainland.
Segment

Geosciences 9, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9050239.

Strip or
Output

Aucelli, P.P.C., Di Paola, G., Incontri, P., Rizzo, A., Vilardo, G., Benassai, G.,
Buonocore, B., Pappone, G., 2017. Coastal inundation risk assessment due to
X

subsidence and sea level rise in a Mediterranean alluvial plain (Volturno coastal
plain – southern Italy). Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 198, 597–609. https://doi.org/
CRI

10.1016/j.ecss.2016.06.017.
Bagdanavičiūtė, I., Kelpšaitė, L., Soomere, T., 2015. Multi-criteria evaluation approach to
CEI

coastal vulnerability index development in micro-tidal low-lying areas. Ocean Coast

X

X
P

Manag. 104, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.011.

Bagdanavičiūtė, I., Kelpšaitė-Rimkienė, L., Galinienė, J., Soomere, T., 2018. Index based
CSI

multi-criteria approach to coastal risk assesment. J. Coast Conserv. 23, 785–800.

P

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0638-5.
Baig, Shahfahad, M.R.I., Ahmad, I.A., Tayyab, M., Asgher, M.S., Rahman, A., 2021.
CVI

Coastal vulnerability mapping by integrating geospatial techniques and analytical

hierarchy process (AHP) along the Vishakhapatnam coastal Tract, Andhra Pradesh,
SVI

India. J. Indian Soc. Rem. Sens. 49, 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-020-

P

01204-6.
Ballesteros, C., Esteves, L.S., 2021. Integrated assessment of coastal exposure and social
PVI

vulnerability to coastal hazards in East Africa. Estuar. Coast 44, 2056–2072. https://
X

doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-00930-5.
EDI

Barros, J.L., Tavares, A.O., Santos, P.P., Freire, P., 2022. Enhancing a coastal territorial
X

X
P

vulnerability index: anticipating the impacts of coastal flooding with a local scale
approach. Coast. Manag. 50, 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/
SSI

08920753.2022.2107858.
X

X
P

Basheer, A.K., Mahendra, R., Pandey, A., 2016. Coastal vulnerability assessment for
Cartography

eastern coast of India, Andhra Pradesh by using geo-spatial technique. Geoinfor.

PSI

X
P

Geostat.: Overview 4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000146.

Baučić, M., 2020. Household level vulnerability analysis—index and fuzzy based
CHI

methods. IJGI 9, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9040263.

X

X
P

Becker, A., Inoue, S., Fischer, M., Schwegler, B., 2012. Climate change impacts on
international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port
Weights

administrators. Climatic Change 110, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-

0043-7.
X

Behera, R., Kar, A., Das, M.R., Panda, P.P., 2019. GIS-based vulnerability mapping of the
coastal stretch from Puri to Konark in Odisha using analytical hierarchy process. Nat.
AHP

Hazards 96, 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-03566-0.

X

Benassai, G., Di Paola, G., Aucelli, P.P.C., 2015. Coastal risk assessment of a micro-tidal
littoral plain in response to sea level rise. Ocean Coast Manag. 104, 22–35. https://
Mean

doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.015.
X

Bera, R., Maiti, R., 2021. An assessment of coastal vulnerability using geospatial
techniques. Environ. Earth Sci. 80, 306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-
Multiplication

09616-4.
Bevacqua, A., Yu, D., Zhang, Y., 2018. Coastal vulnerability: evolving concepts in
understanding vulnerable people and places. Environ. Sci. Pol. 82, 19–29. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.006.
Bhattachan, A., Jurjonas, M.D., Moody, A.C., Morris, P.R., Sanchez, G.M., Smart, L.S.,
X

Taillie, P.J., Emanuel, R.E., Seekamp, E.L., 2018. Sea level rise impacts on rural
coastal social-ecological systems and the implications for decision making. Environ.
Sum

Sci. Pol. 90, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.006.

X

X
Aggregation

Birkmann, J., 2006. Measuring Vulnerability to Promote Disaster-Resilient Societies:

Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions, vol. 5. Institute for Environment and
Square

Human Security Journal, pp. 7–54.

root

Box, J.E., Hubbard, A., Bahr, D.B., Colgan, W.T., Fettweis, X., Mankoff, K.D., Wehrlé, A.,
X

Noël, B., van den Broeke, M.R., Wouters, B., Bjørk, A.A., Fausto, R.S., 2022.
Index

Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise. Nat. Clim.
CHI

CHI
CVI

CVI

CVI

CVI

CVI

CVI
EDI
CRI

CRI

Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01441-2.
Brooks, N., 2003. Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework
El-;Shahat et al.
Bera and Maiti

et al. (2018)
Thatcher et al.

Reimann et al.

(Working Paper No. 38). Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of
Kantamaneni
Aucelli et al.

Furlan et al.

Barros et al.
(continued )

Chaib et al.

East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Satta et al.

Zhu et al.
(2017)

(2020)

(2021)

(2021)

(2013)

(2017)

(2018)

(2018)

(2022)

Brooks, N., Neil Adger, W., Mick Kelly, P., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and
2021
Study

adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global
Environ. Change 15, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006.

20
C. Rocha et al.
Cardona, O.-D., van Aalst, M.K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R.,
Pulwarty, R.S., Schipper, E.L.F., Sinh, B.T., Décamps, H., Keim, M., Davis, I., Ebi, K.
L., Lavell, A., Mechler, R., Murray, V., Pelling, M., Pohl, J., Smith, A.-O.,
Thomalla, F., 2012. Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Field, C.B.,
Dahe, Q., Stocker, T.F., Barros, V. (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 65–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245.005.
Chaib, W., Guerfi, M., Hemdane, Y., 2020. Evaluation of coastal vulnerability and
exposure to erosion and submersion risks in Bou Ismail Bay (Algeria) using the
coastal risk index (CRI). Arabian J. Geosci. 13 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-
05407-6.
Christie, E.K., Spencer, T., Owen, D., McIvor, A.L., Möller, I., Viavattene, C., 2018.
Regional coastal flood risk assessment for a tidally dominant, natural coastal setting:
north Norfolk, southern North Sea. Coast Eng. 134, 177–190. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.05.003.
Church, J.A., White, N.J., 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L01602 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024826.
Church, J.A., White, N.J., 2011. sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st
century. Surv. Geophys. 32, 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
Church, J.A., Clark, P.U., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J.M., Jevrejeva, S., Levermann, A.,
Merrifield, M.A., Milne, G.A., Nerem, R.S., Nunn, P.D., Payne, A.J., Pfeffer, W.T.,
Stammer, D., Unnikrishnan, A.S., 2013. Sea Level change. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D.,
Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V.,
Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, pp. 1137–1216.
Climate Central, 2021. Coastal risk screening tool [WWW document]. Coastal risk
screening tool. URL. https://coastal.climatecentral.org/. accessed 11.3.21.
Coelho, C., Silva, R., Veloso-Gomes, F., Taveira Pinto, F., 2006. A vulnerability analysis
approach for the Portuguese West Coast. In: Risk Analysis V: Simulation and Hazard
Mitigation. Presented at the RISK ANALYSIS 2006. WIT Press, Malta, pp. 251–262.
https://doi.org/10.2495/RISK060241.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental
hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 242–261.
Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D., Stolton, S., Wells, S.,
Wenzel, L. (Eds.), 2019. Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area
Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas, second ed. IUCN, International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
De Serio, F., Armenio, E., Mossa, M., Petrillo, A.F., 2018. How to define priorities in
coastal vulnerability assessment. Geosciences 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/
geosciences8110415.
Desmet, K., Kopp, R.E., Kulp, S.A., Nagy, D.K., Oppenheimer, M., Rossi-Hansberg, E.,
Strauss, B.H., 2021. Evaluating the economic cost of coastal flooding. Am. Econ. J.
Macroecon. 13, 444–486. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20180366.
Douglas, B.C., 1997. Global Sea level acceleration. Surv. Geophys. 18, 279–292. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1006544227856.
Downing, T.E., Patwardhan, A., 2004. Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation. In:
Lim, E., Spanger-Siegfried, E. (Eds.), Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate
Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 67–89.
Ebert, A., Kerle, N., Stein, A., 2009. Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical
proxies and spatial metrics derived from air- and spaceborne imagery and GIS data.
Nat. Hazards 48, 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9264-0.
El-Shahat, S., El-Zafarany, A.M., El Seoud, T.A., Ghoniem, S.A., 2021. Vulnerability
assessment of African coasts to sea level rise using GIS and remote sensing. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 23, 2827–2845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00639-8.
Fairbridge, R.W., Krebs, O.A., 1962. Sea Level and the southern oscillation. Geophys. J.
Int. 6, 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1962.tb02999.x.
Faour, G., Fayad, A., Mhawej, M., 2013. GIS-based approach to the assessment of coastal
vulnerability to Sea Level rise: case study on the eastern mediterranean. JSME 1,
41–48.
Fuerst, F., Warren-Myers, G., 2021. Pricing climate risk: are flooding and sea level rise
risk capitalised in Australian residential property? Clim. Risk Manag. 34, 100361
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100361.
Furlan, E., Pozza, P.D., Michetti, M., Torresan, S., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2021.
Development of a multi-dimensional coastal vulnerability index: assessing
vulnerability to inundation scenarios in the Italian coast. Sci. Total Environ. 772,
144650 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144650.
Füssel, H.-M., 2007. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for
climate change research. Global Environ. Change 17, 155–167. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002.
Garner, A.J., Weiss, J.L., Parris, A., Kopp, R.E., Horton, R.M., Overpeck, J.T., Horton, B.
P., 2018. Evolution of 21st century Sea Level rise projections. Earth’s Future 6,
1603–1615. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000991.
Ghoussein, Y., Mhawej, M., Jaffal, A., Fadel, A., El Hourany, R., Faour, G., 2018.
Vulnerability assessment of the South-Lebanese coast: a GIS-based approach. Ocean
Coast Manag. 158, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.028.
Gornitz, V., Lebedeff, S., Hansen, J., 1982. Global Sea level trend in the past century.
Science 215, 1611–1614. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4540.1611.
Gornitz, V., White, T.W., Cushman, R.M., 1991. Vulnerability of the US to future sea level
rise. In: CONF-910780-1. Presented at the Conference: 7. Symposium on Coastal and
Ocean Management. Long Beach, CA (USA).
21
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
Gornitz, V.M., Daniels, R.C., White, T.W., Birdwell, K.R., 1994. The development of a
coastal risk assessment database: vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. Southeast.
J. Coast Res. 327–338.
Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R.J., Corfee-Morlot, J., 2013. Future flood losses in
major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 802–806. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate1979.
Handiani, D.N., Heriati, A., Gunawan, W.A., 2022. Comparison of coastal vulnerability
assessment for subang regency in north coast west java-Indonesia. Geomatics, Nat.
Hazards Risk 13, 1178–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2022.2066573.
Hastuti, A.W., Nagai, M., Suniada, K.I., 2022. Coastal vulnerability assessment of Bali
province, Indonesia using remote sensing and GIS approaches. Rem. Sens. 14, 4409.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174409.
Hauer, M.E., Hardy, D., Kulp, S.A., Mueller, V., Wrathall, D.J., Clark, P.U., 2021.
Assessing population exposure to coastal flooding due to sea level rise. Nat.
Commun. 12, 6900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27260-1.
Hay, C.C., Morrow, E., Kopp, R.E., Mitrovica, J.X., 2015. Probabilistic reanalysis of
twentieth-century sea-level rise. Nature 517, 481–484. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature14093.
Hinkel, J., Klein, R.J.T., 2006. Integrating knowledge for assessing coastal vulnerability
to climate change. In: McFadden, L., Nicholls, R.J., Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (Eds.),
Managing Coastal Vulnerability: an Integrated Approach. Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 61–77.
Hinkel, J., Lincke, D., Vafeidis, A.T., Perrette, M., Nicholls, R.J., Tol, R.S.J., Marzeion, B.,
Fettweis, X., Ionescu, C., Levermann, A., 2014. Coastal flood damage and adaptation
costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 3292–3297.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222469111.
Holgate, S.J., 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth
century. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028492.
Hoque, M.A.-A., Ahmed, N., Pradhan, B., Roy, S., 2019. Assessment of coastal
vulnerability to multi-hazardous events using geospatial techniques along the
eastern coast of Bangladesh. Ocean Coast Manag. 181, 104898 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104898.
Horton, B.P., Khan, N.S., Cahill, N., Lee, J.S.H., Shaw, T.A., Garner, A.J., Kemp, A.C.,
Engelhart, S.E., Rahmstorf, S., 2020. Estimating global mean sea-level rise and its
uncertainties by 2100 and 2300 from an expert survey. npj Clim Atmos Sci 3, 18.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0121-5.
Huizinga, J., de Moel, H., Szewczyk, W., 2017. Global Flood Depth-Damage Functions:
Methodology and the Database with guidelines., EUR 28552. European Commission.
Joint Research Centre. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Hummel, M.A., Griffin, R., Arkema, K., Guerry, A.D., 2021. Economic evaluation of sea-
level rise adaptation strongly influenced by hydrodynamic feedbacks. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2025961118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025961118.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I,
II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
IPCC, 2018. Summary for Policymakers, In: Global Warming of 1.5◦ C: IPCC Special Report
on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5◦ C above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of
Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to
Eradicate Poverty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, pp. 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.
IPCC, 2019a. Technical Summary [H.- O. Po¨rtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P.
Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J.
Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In: Po¨rtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-
Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A.,
Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., Weyer, N.M. (Eds.), IPCC Special Report
on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781009157964.002.
IPCC, 2019b. Annex I: Glossary [H.-O. Po¨rtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P.
Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J.
Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer. In: Weyer, N.M. (Ed.), IPCC Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 677–702. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781009157964.010.
ISDR, 2009. In: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Islam, A.Md, Mitra, D., Dewan, A., Akhter, S.H., 2016. Coastal multi-hazard vulnerability
assessment along the Ganges deltaic coast of Bangladesh–A geospatial approach.
Ocean Coast Manag. 127, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.012.
Jana, A.B., Hegde, A.V., 2016. GIS based approach for vulnerability assessment of the
Karnataka coast, India. Adv. Civ. Eng. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/
5642523, 2016.
Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C., Holgate, S., 2006. Nonlinear trends and
multiyear cycles in sea level records. J. Geophys. Res. 111, C909012 https://doi.org/
10.1029/2005JC003229.
Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A., Matthews, A.P., Spada, G., 2014. Trends and
acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807. Global Planet. Change 113,
11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.12.004.
Jevrejeva, S., Jackson, L.P., Grinsted, A., Lincke, D., Marzeion, B., 2018. Flood damage
costs under the sea level rise with warming of 1.5 ◦ C and 2 ◦ C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aacc76.
Kantamaneni, K., Phillips, M., Thomas, T., Jenkins, R., 2018. Assessing coastal
vulnerability: development of a combined physical and economic index. Ocean Coast
Manag. 158, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.039.
Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., 1999. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change.
Ambio 28, 182–187.
C. Rocha et al.
Kopp, R.E., Horton, R.M., Little, C.M., Mitrovica, J.X., Oppenheimer, M., Rasmussen, D.
J., Strauss, B.H., Tebaldi, C., 2014. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level
projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earth’s Future 2, 383–406.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000239.
Koroglu, A., Ranasinghe, R., Jiménez, J.A., Dastgheib, A., 2019. Comparison of coastal
vulnerability index applications for barcelona province. Ocean Coast Manag. 178,
104799 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.001.
Kovaleva, O., Sergeev, A., Ryabchuk, D., 2022. Coastal vulnerability index as a tool for
current state assessment and anthropogenic activity planning for the Eastern Gulf of
Finland coastal zone (the Baltic Sea). Appl. Geogr. 143, 102710 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102710.
Lavell, A., 2002. Local Level Risk Management. Concepts and Experience in Central
America. and Mitigation Summit, New Delhi, India, p. 15. Presented at the Paper to
be presented at the Disaster Preparedness.
Leuliette, E.W., Nerem, R.S., Mitchum, G.T., 2004. Calibration of TOPEX/Poseidon and
jason altimeter data to construct a continuous record of mean Sea Level change. Mar.
Geodes. 27, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490410490465193.
Li, X., Zhou, Y., Tian, B., Kuang, R., Wang, L., 2015. GIS-based methodology for erosion
risk assessment of the muddy coast in the Yangtze Delta. Ocean Coast Manag. 108,
97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.028.
Mahapatra, M., Ratheesh, R., Rajawat, A.S., 2013. Sea Level rise and coastal vulnerability
assessment: a review. JGEE 3, 67–80.
Mahapatra, M., Ramakrishnan, R., Rajawat, A.S., 2015. Coastal vulnerability assessment
using analytical hierarchical process for South Gujarat coast, India. Nat. Hazards 76,
139–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1491-y.
Martins, V.N., Pires, R., Cabral, P., 2012. Modelling of coastal vulnerability in the stretch
between the beaches of Porto de Mós and Falésia, Algarve (Portugal). J. Coast
Conserv. 16, 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-012-0191-6.
McLaughlin, S., Cooper, J.A.G., 2010. A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: a tool for
coastal managers? Environ. Hazards 9, 233–248. https://doi.org/10.3763/
ehaz.2010.0052.
Mcleod, E., Poulter, B., Hinkel, J., Reyes, E., Salm, R., 2010. Sea-level rise impact models
and environmental conservation: a review of models and their applications. Ocean
Coast Manag. 53, 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.009.
Merschroth, S., Miatto, A., Weyand, S., Tanikawa, H., Schebek, L., 2020. Lost material
stock in buildings due to Sea Level rise from global warming: the case of Fiji islands.
Sustainability 12, 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030834.
Metzger, M.J., Leemans, R., Schröter, D., 2005. A multidisciplinary multi-scale
framework for assessing vulnerabilities to global change. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs.
Geoinf. 7, 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2005.06.011.
Murali, R.M., Ankita, M., Amrita, S., Vethamony, P., 2013. Coastal vulnerability
assessment of Puducherry coast, India, using the analytical hierarchical process. Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 3291–3311. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-3291-
2013.
Nakajima, K., Sakamoto, N., Udo, K., Takeda, Y., Ohno, E., Morisugi, M., Mori, R., 2020.
Cost-benefit analysis of adaptation to beach loss due to climate change in Japan.
JMSE 8, 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8090715.
Nauels, A., Rogelj, J., Schleussner, C.-F., Meinshausen, M., Mengel, M., 2017. Linking sea
level rise and socioeconomic indicators under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.
Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa92b6.
Nerem, R.S., Chambers, D.P., Choe, C., Mitchum, G.T., 2010. Estimating mean Sea Level
change from the TOPEX and jason altimeter missions. Mar. Geodes. 33, 435–446.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2010.491031.
Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J., Nicholls, R.J., 2015. Future coastal
population growth and exposure to seasea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global
assessment. PLoS One 10, e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0118571.
Ng, K., Borges, P., Phillips, M.R., Medeiros, A., Calado, H., 2019. An integrated coastal
vulnerability approach to small islands: the Azores case. Sci. Total Environ. 690,
1218–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.013.
Nguyen, T.T.X., Bonetti, J., Rogers, K., Woodroffe, C.D., 2016. Indicator-based
assessment of climate-change impacts on coasts: a review of concepts,
methodological approaches and vulnerability indices. Ocean Coast Manag. 123,
18–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.11.022.
NOAA Office of Coastal Management, 2011. Sea Level Rise Map Viewer [WWW
Document]. URL. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/. accessed 3.1.22.
Noor, N.M., Abdul Maulud, K.N., 2022. Coastal vulnerability: a brief review on
integrated assessment in southeast Asia. JMSE 10, 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse10050595.
Oloyede, M.O., Benson, N.U., Williams, A.B., 2021. Climate change and coastal
vulnerability assessment methods: a review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 665
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/665/1/012069.
Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B.C., Hinkel, J., Van de Wal, R., Magnan, A.K., Abd-
Elgawad, A., Cai, R., Cifuentes-Jara, M., DeConto, R.M., Ghosh, T., Hay, J., Isla, F.,
Marzeion, B., Meyssignac, B., Sebesvari, Z., 2022. Sea Level rise and implications for
low-lying islands, coasts and communities. In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-
Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A.,
Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., Weyer, N.M. (Eds.), IPCC Special Report
on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 321–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781009157964.
O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A.,
Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L., West, J., 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple
stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environ. Change 14,
303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.01.001.
22
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
Parthasarathy, A., Natesan, U., 2015. Coastal vulnerability assessment: a case study on
erosion and coastal change along Tuticorin. Gulf of Mannar. Nat. Hazard. 75,
1713–1729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1394-y.
Pendleton, E.A., Barras, J.A., Williams, S.J., Twichell, D.C., 2010a. Coastal Vulnerability
Assessment of the Northern Gulf of Mexico to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Change (U.
S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1146). U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Pendleton, E.A., Thieler, E.R., Williams, S.J., 2010b. Importance of coastal change
variables in determining vulnerability to sea- and lake-level change. J. Coast Res.
261, 176–183. https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1102.1.
Peric, J., Grdic, Z.Š., 2015. Economic impacts of Sea Level rise caused by climate change.
ToSEE – Tour. Southern and Eastern Europe 3, 285–294.
Prahl, B.F., Boettle, M., Costa, L., Kropp, J.P., Rybski, D., 2018. Damage and protection
cost curves for coastal floods within the 600 largest European cities. Sci. Data 5,
180034. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.34.
Pugh, D., 2004. Changing Sea Levels: Effects of Tides, Weather, and Climate. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K. ; New York.
Ramieri, E., Hartley, A., Barbanti, A., Santos, F.D., Gomes, A., Hilden, M., Laihonen, P.,
Marinova, N., Santini, M., 2011. Methods for Assessing Coastal Vulnerability to
Climate Change. European Environment Agency, Bologna, Italy. ETC CCA Technical
Paper No. 1/2011).
Reimann, L., Vafeidis, A.T., Brown, S., Hinkel, J., Tol, R.S.J., 2018. Mediterranean
UNESCO World Heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea-level
rise. Nat. Commun. 9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06645-9.
Rocha, C., Antunes, C., Catita, C., 2020. Coastal vulnerability assessment due to Sea Level
rise: the case study of the atlantic coast of mainland Portugal. Water 12. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w12020360.
Roukounis, C.N., Tsihrintzis, V.A., 2022. Indices of coastal vulnerability to climate
change: a review. Environ. Process. 9, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-022-
00577-9.
Royo, M.L., Ranasinghe, R., Jiménez, J.A., 2016. A rapid, low-cost approach to coastal
vulnerability assessment at a national level. J. Coastal Res. 32, 932–945. https://doi.
org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-14-00217.1.
Ruiz-Ramírez, J.D., Euán-Ávila, J.I., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., 2019. Vulnerability of coastal
resort cities to mean Sea Level rise in the Mexican Caribbean. Coastal Manage 47,
23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1525260.
Ružić, I., Dugonjić Jovančević, S., Benac, Č., Krvavica, N., 2019. Assessment of the
coastal vulnerability index in an area of complex geological conditions on the Krk
island, Northeast Adriatic sea. Geosciences 9, 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/
geosciences9050219.
Satta, A., Puddu, M., Venturini, S., Giupponi, C., 2017. Assessment of coastal risks to
climate change related impacts at the regional scale: the case of the Mediterranean
region. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 24, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2017.06.018.
Schinko, T., Drouet, L., Vrontisi, Z., Hof, A., Hinkel, J., Mochizuki, J., Bosetti, V.,
Fragkiadakis, K., van Vuuren, D., Lincke, D., 2020. Economy-wide effects of coastal
flooding due to sea level rise: a multi-model simultaneous treatment of mitigation,
adaptation, and residual impacts. Environ. Res. Commun. 2, 015002 https://doi.org/
10.1088/2515-7620/ab6368.
Sekovski, I., Del Río, L., Armaroli, C., 2020. Development of a coastal vulnerability index
using analytical hierarchy process and application to Ravenna province (Italy).
Ocean Coast Manag. 183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104982.
Shaw, J., Taylor, R.B., Forbes, D.I., Solomon, S., Ruz, M.-H., 1998. Sensitivity of the
Coasts of Canada to Sea-Level Rise, Bulletin 505. Geological Survey of Canada,
Ottawa.
Slangen, A., van de Wal, R., Reerink, T., de Winter, R., Hunter, J., Woodworth, P.,
Edwards, T., 2017. The impact of uncertainties in ice sheet dynamics on sea-level
allowances at tide gauge locations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 5, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse5020021.
Small, C., Nicholls, R.J., 2003. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones.
J. Coast Res. 19, 584–599.
Sriver, R.L., Lempert, R.J., Wikman-Svahn, P., Keller, K., 2018. Characterizing uncertain
sea-level rise projections to support investment decisions. PLoS One 13, e0190641.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190641.
Sweet, W.V., Kopp, R.E., Weaver, C.P., Obeysekera, J., Horton, R.M., Thieler, E.R.,
Zervas, C., 2017. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States
(NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083). NOAA/NOS Center for Operational
Oceanographic Products and Services, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Szlafsztein, C., Sterr, H., 2007. A GIS-based vulnerability assessment of coastal natural
hazards, state of Pará, Brazil. J. Coast Conserv. 11, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11852-007-0003-6.
Thatcher, C.A., Brock, J.C., Pendleton, E.A., 2013. Economic vulnerability to seasea-level
rise along the northern U.S. Gulf coast. J. Coastal Res. 63, 234–243. https://doi.org/
10.2112/SI63-017.1.
Thieler, E.R., Hammar-Klose, E.S., 1999. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to
Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast (Report No. Open-File
Report 99-593). U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA.
Torresan, S., Critto, A., Dalla Valle, M., Harvey, N., Marcomini, A., 2008. Assessing
coastal vulnerability to climate change: comparing segmentation at global and
regional scales. Sustain. Sci. 3, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0045-1.
Tsoukala, V.K., Chondros, M., Kapelonis, Z.G., Martzikos, N., Lykou, A., Belibassakis, K.,
Makropoulos, C., 2016. An integrated wave modelling framework for extreme and
rare events for climate change in coastal areas – the case of Rethymno, Crete.
Oceanologia 58, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2016.01.002.
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018. Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the
Implications for US Coastal Real Estate (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA).
C. Rocha et al.
United Nations, 2017. Ocean Factsheet Package. Presented at the The Ocean Conference,
New York, USA, p. 7.
VanZomeren, C., Acevedo-Mackey, D., 2019. A Review of Coastal Vulnerability
Assessments: Definitions, Components, and Variables (Final Report No. ERDC/EL SR-
19-5), Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. Environmental
Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Washington, DC,
USA.
Warren-Myers, G., Aschwanden, G., Fuerst, F., Krause, A., 2018. Estimating the potential
risks of Sea Level rise for public and private property ownership, occupation and
management. Risks 6, 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks6020037.
Wei, D., Chatterjee, S., 2013. Economic Impact of Sea Level Rise to the City of Los
Angeles (Final Report). Price School of Public Policy and Center for Risk and
23
Ocean and Coastal Management 237 (2023) 106536
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA90089, USA.
Yin, J., Yin, Z., Wang, J., Xu, S., 2012. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-
level rise for the Chinese coast. J. Coast Conserv. 16, 123–133. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11852-012-0180-9.
Yohe, G., Tol, R.S.J., 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity—moving
toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Change 12, 25–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00026-7.
Zhu, Z.-T., Cai, F., Chen, S.-L., Gu, D.-Q., Feng, A.-P., Cao, C., Qi, H.-S., Lei, G., 2018.
Coastal vulnerability to erosion using a multi-criteria index: a case study of the
Xiamen coast. Sustainability 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010093.