Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Review
Coastal vulnerability: Evolving concepts in understanding vulnerable people
and places
T
⁎
Anthony Bevacquaa, Danlin Yua, , Yaojun Zhangb
a
b
Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
School of Sociology and Population Studies, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Vulnerability
Resilience
Coastal hazards
Social vulnerability
Coastal vulnerability is a spatial concept that identifies people and places that are susceptible to disturbances
resulting from coastal hazards. Hazards in the coastal environment, such as coastal storms and erosion, pose
significant threats to coastal physical, economic, and social systems. The theory of vulnerability has been an
evolving idea over the past hundred years. In recent decades, improved technology and high-profile disaster
events, has caused an increase in publications in the coastal hazards field. Modern approaches to understanding
coastal vulnerability examine the complex systems that determine the spatial distribution of hazards, risks, and
exposure. Consensus among today’s researchers shows that coastal vulnerability is geographically dependent and
requires place based investigations. This review examines over 200 coastal vulnerability related works. Through
this extensive literature review, this research describes the evolution of vulnerability concepts, and the modern
definition of vulnerability with the goal of providing a well-informed body of knowledge to be used in the
advancement of resilience and increased sustainability in coastal areas.
1. Introduction
others. To provide a holistic understanding of the concept, we conduct a
comprehensive search on The Web of Science database using the term
coastal vulnerability, which yields 2606 total publications from 1998 to
the present. Additionally, in the related fields of coastal hazards, social
vulnerability, and ecosystem services, there are 2839, 12,360, and
20,083 publications respectively (As of 09/01/2017). These supporting
fields of research enhance the conceptual basis of the complex and
dynamic system that is coastal vulnerability. In performing this extensive review of literature in academic journals this study describes the
evolution of vulnerability concepts, gives the modern definition of
vulnerability, and illustrates how it is applied. By following this procedure for the various fields that are incorporated in the overall theme
of coastal vulnerability, this review attempts to concisely discuss the
fields of socioeconomic vulnerability, physical vulnerability, and ecological vulnerability as they pertain to coastal hazards. The goal of this
work is to offer a fully informed knowledge base to be used in the
advancement of resilience and sustainability in coastal regions.
Research in the field of vulnerability and resilience has a large scope
of applications, ranging from asset management to national security
(Ten et al., 2007; Vatsa, 2004). Vulnerability to natural hazards is
principally important in the field of environmental management
(Preston et al., 2011). Understanding the complex and dynamic relationships between people and the environment is critical in managing
natural resources and promoting economic prosperity and sustainability (Blaikie et al., 2014). Furthermore, having access to information
regarding risks of hazards is vital in mitigating natural disasters and
avoiding catastrophes (De Sherbinin et al., 2007; O'Brien et al., 2006).
Recent disaster events such as Hurricane Katrina, Sandy, Irma and
Maria have increased public awareness of vulnerability in coastal areas.
Losses from these recent hazard events have triggered realignment of
emergency management from a state of reaction to proactive planning,
with a focus on mitigation, preparedness, and recovery programs
(Cutter et al., 2000). Stakeholder demand has facilitated an increase in
management action, and the need for detailed information to allow for
targeted mitigation strategies. This necessity for information has been
met with advances in research and increased literature.
Coastal vulnerability and resilience research integrate primarily
geography, environmental science, and the social sciences, among
⁎
2. Concept development: defining coastal vulnerability
Vulnerability and resilience research entered scientific literature in
the early 1970′s and has increased in frequency of publication in the
1990′s with more publications in recent years (Adger et al., 2005a,b;
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bevacquaa2@ail.montclair.edu (A. Bevacqua), yud@mail.montclair.edu (D. Yu), zhyaojun@ruc.edu.cn (Y. Zhang).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.006
Received 2 November 2017; Received in revised form 9 January 2018; Accepted 10 January 2018
1462-9011/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
seen in Cutter et al. (2000), Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005),
Cutter et al., (2008).
Janssen et al., 2006).
Resilience, originally devised in ecological research, refers to the
resistance to change in the face of some type of disturbance. Holling
(1973) describes this as “Resilience determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of these
systems to absorb change of state variable, driving variables, and
parameters, and still persist” (Holling, 1973). This concept has since
been adapted to explore many other aspects of human and ecological
systems.
Early understanding and spatial delineation of coastal vulnerability
occurred as early as the mid-20th century. An example of this is
Kidson’s writing in 1950 describing erosion in Wales, United Kingdom
and how it will impede development (Kidson, 1950).
Literature pertaining to the vulnerability of wetland ecosystems has
been produced as early as 1970 with considerations for wetlands facing
coastal change as described by Valdemoro et al. (1970). In this early
work, shoreline evolution of coastal river mouths was implicated in
changes to flora and fauna of the study area. Additionally, scholars
started to investigate physical dynamics and their impacts on coastal
tourism in the 1970s (Borrego, 1970). Around the same time, anthropogenic impacts on coastal vegetation and ecosystems were also being
conceptualized in highly cited works such as Liddle (1975). Indirect
uses of the ecosystem services of coastal areas is dominated by the
tourism industry. The aesthetic appeal of visiting and enjoying the
natural world is an important economic driver for tourism and the regions that depend on this monetary gain. However, urbanization and
development caused by these drivers is commonly the cause of degradation of these services, and therefor lead to increased coastal vulnerability.
Other than the obvious economic benefits of monetary gains for the
tourism development, the coastal environment provides many ecosystem services to society. Ecosystems in estuarine and coastal environments are intensely utilized, and hence at risk (Barbier et al.,
2011). Socioeconomic gains from ecosystem services that have been
investigated include the extraction of natural resources, cultural services, recreation, and riparian zone buffers of coastal storms. Over the
past three decades, literature in comprehensive coastal vulnerability
assessments began to consider ecosystem services as a means of measuring both resilience and exposure. Ecosystem services are evaluated
based on ecosystem function, ecological production, values, and anthropogenic alterations to the ecosystem (Costanza et al., 1997; Egoh
et al., 2007). Consensus among literature states that many types of
anthropogenic forcing such as development and urbanization, resource
over extraction, and pollution can reduce the productivity and service
outcomes and influence vulnerability. These resources are used directly
and indirectly in many ways with implications of cultural and economic
value. This has been recurring themes in studies over the past two
decades (Daily, 1997; Daly and Farley, 2004; Barbier et al., 2011). In
the more current works, considerations for the ecosystem services and
society well-being are considered concurrently, using damage from past
storm events, and loss of economic opportunity for individuals that
depend on coastal resources. This is expressed in Wang and Yarnal
(2012), Senapati and Gupta (2017), and Henry et al. (2017).
Social vulnerability to natural hazard themes and concepts also
began to develop in the works of Domeisen, (1962) which investigated
natural disasters as a threat to social development, and (Kahen, 1970)
studying natural disasters in developing nations. These early studies
integrated socioeconomic components into coastal hazard research. The
primary components associated with coastal hazards include wind,
storm surge, and coastal erosion. In the late 1980′s and early 1990′s, the
high amount of human development along coastlines, and the resulting
anthropogenic impacts, understanding the factors that govern coastal
vulnerability have become even more crucial as described in the publications of Goldberg (1994) and Nordstrom and Lotstein (1989). In
more recent developments, the measure of these factors has become
more precise, and the interpretations of vulnerability more accurate as
3. Identifying vulnerable coastal areas: spatial delineation and
quantification
3.1. Comprehensive studies
The spatial delineation of physical hazards, vulnerable ecosystems,
and vulnerable populations is an integral part of measuring exposure as
described in the keystone work of Cutter et al. (2000), and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency publication (Agency, 1997). A dominant theme is that atmospheric, hydrologic, and geologic spheres interact with the environment resulting in spatially identifiable social,
economic, and ecosystem vulnerability. There are historic evidence that
regional and local economies are often impacted by coastal hazards.
Particularly along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, many important trade and transportation hubs are in areas affected by coastal
storms. Critical infrastructure such as highways, airports, and ports are
driving forces in regional economies. This theme has been well represented in the studies of Cutter et al., (2003), Stewart (2003), Pielke
et al. (2008). As coastal hazards impact regions, these economic drivers
are halted for extended periods of time as described in Uyarra et al.,
(2005), Moreno and Becken (2009), and Bec et al. (2016).
Comprehensive studies of vulnerability often integrate both social
and physical vulnerability to gain an understanding of the relationship
between people and the environment. By combining these aspects,
more detailed information can be deduced. The concept of social vulnerability is a central theme in vulnerability research. Social vulnerability refers to the socioeconomic conditions of a population that determine an individual’s ability to cope with or adapt to hazards. The
detailed definition of social vulnerability as described in Cutter et al.
(2003) suggests “The major factors that influence social vulnerability
are lack of access to resources, limited access to political power, beliefs
and customs, building stock and age, and physically limited individuals.”. Extensive literature has been written on social vulnerability
to many environmental and anthropogenic hazards. Cutter et al. (2003)
work provided the template for countless other publications and social
vulnerability mitigation strategies.
Cutter et al. (2003) utilized socioeconomic and demographic data to
create the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI). This study aimed to describe social vulnerability at the county-level for the United States.
Utilizing 1990 census data, this work developed the integration of potential social exposure and resilience. This information can be used to
couple social inequalities and location inequalities in a place based
model. This study successfully created a vulnerability index that addresses socioeconomic and demographic information which is now used
throughout the fields of academic research and environmental management. Furthermore, this study utilizes the hazards of place model of
vulnerability, which is rooted in an exposure model that describes the
measure of social resilience to hazards. Environmental factors that are
important to social vulnerability include critical infrastructure and
community lifelines (Cutter et al., 2003). Parameters used to examine
these factors include age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, special
needs populations, non-English speaking immigrants, and the homeless
(Cutter et al., 2003).
Coastal areas are very important for local and national economies
such as fisheries and tourism. In their work, Moreno and Becken (2009)
vulnerability assessment methodology for tourism in coastal areas is
developed with considerations for seasonal economic fluctuations.
Additionally, the characterization of climate conditions in the study
area and scenario modeling, was used in the analysis to describe nonlinearities and feedback loops. Climate change and the extreme weather
events make coastal areas particularly vulnerable. This is exacerbated
by the importance of tourism and recreation industries in these areas.
Climatic events affect the natural resources that are essential for
20
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
Scholars also discuss the coastal morphology conditions in the literature. For instance, Hapke and Richmond (2000) discusses more costeffective approaches to monitoring morphological changes. This work
ties into coastal vulnerability studies by using photogrammetric
methods to calculate beach morphodynamics in response to storm
events in a more efficient way than traditional GPS ground profiling.
Retreating coastlines and long-term erosion is a common theme in this
research area. Early data collection techniques, such as beach profiling
used by Morton (1991) has been replaced by rapid data collection and
updating with remotely sensed data. Although profiling is an accurate
means for examining beach change, caveats of low accuracy and needs
for interpolation, lead to low spatial resolution, gaps in data, and increased error. Hapke and Richmond (2000) use Digital Terrain Models
(DTMs) created using a softcopy photogrammetry in a case study of
Cowell Beach, Santa Cruz, California. The technique used can be categorized as a Coastal Aerial Mapping System, or CAMS. CAMS approach
is a rapid response tool that can be used to document impacts of severe
storm events rapidly. This procedure not only allows the images to be
georeferenced, but the elevation information gained from the surveyed
ground control allows for the absolute orientation that simplifies collection of data from the stereo model without distortion caused by
terrain relief (Hapke and Richmond, 2000). DTMs generated from the
stereo models of two study dates was used to calculate volumes for a
beach segment. The concepts developed in this work have become even
more advanced and readily available to today’s researcher.
tourism activities, resulting in a decrease of visitors, as described by
Uyarra et al. (2005). Aguirre (1991) also describes this through the
example of the devastating economic impacts of Hurricane Gilbert,
costing Cancun Mexico nearly $90 million in tourism losses in 1988.
Burton (2010) examines numerical hurricane and impact prediction
modeling strategy, particularly the social component of hurricane loss
modeling. This was achieved by examining what extent can a quantified
measure of social vulnerability be incorporated into numerical hurricane impact modeling, in the hope of improving loss prediction, and
understand which indicators of social vulnerability explain spatial differences in impacts from the wind and storm surge hazards associated
with hurricanes. To accomplish this a social vulnerability index was
coupled with a surface wind analysis, storm surge inundation model,
with FEMA’s Gulf Coast damage data after Hurricane Katrina. Their
study suggests that the topography, bathymetry, and human-environment interaction of this area make the citizens of this area particularly
vulnerable to hurricane winds and storm surges. The results of this
research showed that physical storm parameters contribute greatly to
hurricane impact and the social parameters become significant at extreme storm levels. As shown here, the collaboration between federal
management entities and academics is improving accuracy, efficiency,
and real-world results in improving resilience.
More recently, Nelson et al. (2015) developed methods for high
resolution social vulnerability maps. This work utilized a hybrid
method for creating a social vulnerability index at the spatial scale of
tax parcel. Dasymetric mapping depicts quantitative spatial data using
boundaries that divide the area into zones of relative homogeneity with
the purpose of better portraying the spatial distribution. The resulting
parcel level index was overlaid with environmental hazard boundaries
for precise identification of the spatial overlap between socially vulnerable populations and hazard exposure. Demographic variables pertaining to race, economic status, nationality, age, gender, household
type, housing quality, and health were considered in the analytical
process. These approaches of demographic inputs, use of imagery, and
identifying hazard boundaries are modern developments of earlier
concepts. The concepts developed by the early pioneers of vulnerability
were further advanced throughout the years to result in the comprehensive methods utilized in research and management today.
3.2.2. Crowdsourcing vulnerability information: participatory GIS
Tapping into local knowledge and public involvement can be a
powerful tool which promotes public acceptance of policy while providing researchers with unique and useful information on specific locations. Jankowski (2009) discusses the use of participatory GIS (PGIS)
to improve traditional models of citizen involvement in making decisions about the use of natural resources in two different case studies.
PGIS has many advantages to the status quo of stakeholder involvement. Common practices such as community forums and hearings often
exclude public opinion until the very end of the management process.
This can lead to lack of trust and communication that is critical for the
success of environmental management (Jankowski, 2009). PGIS uses
commercial and open source GIS software, publicly available data, and
information acquired from the participants. By doing so, information
about management decisions can be shared, and new data can be easily
acquired.
When research topics cross disciplines of local economies and natural service industries, such as ecotourism, PGIS can be very useful.
Levine and Feinholz (2015) go into detail of their experience using PGIS
in a collaborative project to better understand social and ecological
systems in Hawaii. They highlight the efficiency of PGIS in acquiring
information in data poor areas. Because coastal and marine ecosystem
management is fundamentally based on spatial information, data regarding the locations of resources, people, and problems are central to
the decisions that are made, as discussed in Vajjhala (2006).
Levine and Feinholz (2015) were successful in promoting community trust and acquiring new information on the topic of ocean and
coastal resource use. A major strength of PGIS is gaining stakeholder
involvement. Incorporating local knowledge and community participation in decision making processes are critical in obtaining a more
complete set of information in developing successful environmental
management and natural resource planning programs as suggested in
Berkes (1998).
3.2. Novel approaches: advancement in methods and technology
3.2.1. Advances in data collection
As conceptual understanding and computational technology advanced so has new frameworks and methodologies. Modern vulnerability studies are developed and implemented to create more detailed
results of the spatial distribution of vulnerability, thus allowing for
targeted management strategies. The use of remote sensing and aerial
photography is a common way to collect data over large areas frequently. This approach of collecting data is cost effective and efficient
compared to in situ data collection. In coastal vulnerability studies,
collecting data on the physical geography of the study site is a requirement to yield accurate results.
Wynja et al. (2014) describes mapping techniques used to gain information on the Northern regions of Canada to prepare for oil spill
related emergencies. Low-altitude Helicopter high definition georeferenced videography was used to collect baseline coastal information
including shoreline type and vegetation. This information is useful in
wildlife and ecosystem management. This is a critical area of research
manifested in the economic importance of Canada’s Northern regions to
trade, tourism, housing development, and commercial fisheries. The
risk of oil pollution is a significant hazard due to the oil exploration and
increased ship traffic in this region. The resulting classification maps
yielded valuable information to emergency preparedness managers.
This work is significant by using remote sensing techniques to classify
coastlines, geographic information systems to interpret data, and to
draw conclusions for the spatial distribution of vulnerability.
3.2.3. Systems thinking: system dynamics modeling of coastal vulnerability
Environmental and human influences on vulnerability of a place are
complex and dynamic. Global changes in political, economic, and environmental systems can all influence vulnerability on multiple spatial
scales, and change over time, as illustrated in the works of Pelling and
Uitto (2001) and Cash and Moser (2000). Systems thinking in
21
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
dynamic modeling and geographic information systems to perform the
analysis and visualize the results.
environmental management is frequently present in the literature as
essential to successfully understand and manage the complex factors of
social, economic, and biophysical structures that govern environmental
conditions (Ahmad and Simonovic, 2004; Dyson and Chang, 2005;
Borst et al., 2006; Hirsch et al., 2007, Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2011; Chen
et al., 2013).
The system dynamics simulation approach is perhaps the most exciting aspect of cutting edge environmental analytical research. System
dynamics is a mathematical modeling method used to understand and
manage economic, natural, and physical systems using stocks, flows,
and internal feedback loops. This field developed in the late 1950s and
early 1960s by Jay Forrester and his colleagues in the publications of
Forrester (1961), Forrester (1968), Forrester (1970), Forrester
(1971a,b). As computational technology advanced, the use of system
dynamics modeling became more prevalent, as seen in the works of
Forrester (1971a,b), Senge and Forrester (1980), Forrester (1992),
Forrester (1993), Forrester (1994), Forrester (1995). Additional early
insight into this progressive methodology include those of Coyle and
Alexander (1997), Coyle (1998), Coyle et al. (1999). As the turn of the
century approached the system dynamic theory was cemented as a
widely used theory in urban geography, as described in Allen (1988),
Ebert et al. (2009).
As concepts in system dynamics modeling evolve out of their origins
in economics and entered spheres of public health such as described in
Homer and Hirsch (2006), it has become apparent to the consensus of
researchers described below, that this approach is a viable option in the
modeling and measurement of complex vulnerability systems.
The system dynamic modeling strategy has been applied in various
environmental topics in literature. Dyson and Chang (2005) used
system dynamics simulation to gain insight into the management of
municipal solid waste. Ghaffarzadegan et al. (2011) employed small
system dynamic models to improve efficiency of public policy. Feng
et al. (2013) sought to better understand energy consumption in urban
environments and carbon dioxide emissions using this system dynamic
approach.
As this area of research continues to progress, more complex system
dynamics models and simulations are being created to examine natural
hazards, human response, public safety, and sustainability planning.
This is apparent in works of Hoard et al. (2005), Homer and Hirsch
(2006) and also Yu et al. (2014), Yu and Fang (2017). Early publications, such as Hoard et al. (2005), began the transition of this technique
into the vulnerability to natural hazards field. In their study, Hoard
et al. (2005) use system dynamics modeling to simulate various scenarios to assist managers for rural disaster planning and mitigation with
a focus on hospital surge capacity.
System dynamics in natural hazards and water resource management literature include Wu et al. (2013) which describes a dynamic
model used to assess the vulnerability of regional water resources in
arid areas. Additionally, Ahmad and Simonovic (2004) developed a
new approach for using spatial system dynamics for simulation of water
resource systems. Moreover, system dynamics was used to examine
water resource management problems as seen in Winz et al. (2009) and
Mirchi et al. (2012). The literature also shows extensive works connecting water resource management to natural hazards and evacuation
planning. This connection is made in Li and Simonovic (2002),
Simonovic and Ahmad (2005).
Naturally, the literature combines the complex biophysical systems
to produce more sophisticated models. Folke (2006) presents perspectives on resilience that are derived from examining the dynamics of the
social-ecological system. System dynamics simulation offers a strategy
to model such complex systems as they are faced with a multitude of
possible scenarios over various time scales. Literature also shows the
use of system dynamics simulations pertaining to sustainability and
vulnerability to be represented in a geographic information system
environment. High impact works such as Ahmad and Simonovic (2004),
Liu et al. (2007), and Xu and Coors (2012), all use a form of system
3.3. Scale dependency in vulnerability assessments
Coastal vulnerability to natural hazards poses a significant threat to
the societal wellbeing and economic prosperity on local, regional and
global spatial scales, as discussed by o’Brien et al. (2004), Adger et al.
(2005a,b), Adger (2006), Torresan et al. (2008), Fekete et al. (2010),
McLaughlin and Cooper (2010), Petrosillo et al. (2010), Gosling (2013),
Lemieux et al. (2014), Paquin et al. (2016). In our context, the spatial
scale of geographic information is a means of describing the spatial
extent of a process or system. It can also be used to describe the scale in
which a process of a system operates, or how a spatial feature is measured in terms of size, shape, and orientation (Atkinson and Tate,
2000).
In the reviewed works, methods of assessment vary by either integrating cross scale approaches or focusing on one scale (Cutter, 1996;
Cutter et al., 2000; Cutter et al., 2003; o’Brien et al., 2004; Cutter et al.,
2008; Burton, 2010; Fekete et al., 2010; Petrosillo et al., 2010; Paquin
et al., 2016). When the investigation is focused on national or statewide
assessment, it is common for the scale of the input data to be the same.
For example, as seen in Cutter et al. (2003), Adger et al. (2005a,b),
Boruff et al. (2005). In these works, vulnerability factors are measured
with relatively coarse resolution, on the order of counties or even larger
regional areas. Furthermore, if the study is focusing on a much smaller
area, such as neighborhood, or community, the scale of the input data
will also be small (Stockdon et al., 2009; Levine and Feinholz, 2015;
Nelson et al., 2015; Senapati and Gupta, 2017). Here we see the data
collection and analysis performed over relatively small areas with much
more detail and resolution, where the input data can range from demographic indicators to local knowledge, and even high-resolution
measurements of physical features such as dunes. Specific data collection methods vary and may overlap both large and small scales depending on the scope and focus of the study (Cutter, 1996; Comfort
et al., 1999; Cutter et al., 2000; Williams and Kapustka, 2000;
McLaughlin et al., 2002; Cutter et al., 2003; Klemas, 2009; Fekete et al.,
2010; Klemas, 2010, 2014; Nelson et al., 2015). When considering that
uncertainty in geographic information is related to spatial scale, it is
common for comprehensive and precise investigations to utilize multiple scales to optimize data analysis and produce more accurate conclusions (Cutter et al., 2003; Adger et al., 2005a,b; Birkmann, 2007;
Fekete et al., 2010).
In coastal vulnerability literature, aspects of social, physical, and
ecological spheres are quantified at varying levels of spatial measure
and spatial variance of aggregated spatial data (o’Brien et al., 2004;
Yasué, 2006; Fekete et al., 2010; Petrosillo et al., 2010; Paquin et al.,
2016). This diverse approach is beneficial in these investigations when
performing spatial analysis, explaining spatial effects, and identifying
spatial clustering and patterns as seen in the works of Cash and Moser
(2000), Vatsa (2004), Adger (2006), Metzger and Schröter (2006),
Yasué (2006), Cutter et al. (2008), Fekete et al. (2010).
In the socioeconomic sphere, vulnerability factors include demographic indicators of at risk groups, housing markets, regional transportation and trade, and institutional hazard planning as described in
the previous sections and in the works of Cannon (1994), Godschalk
(2003), Adger (2006), Eakin and Luers (2006), Aswani et al., (2017).
These factors occur differently at local, regional, and global levels
(o’Brien et al., 2004; Adger et al., 2005a,b; Adger, 2006; Torresan et al.,
2008). Relatively large spatial scales are useful in avoiding noise in the
data, but are often insufficient in measuring social vulnerability at
spatial levels in which management efforts take place, such as in local
settings. This conflict is investigated by many publications including
McLaughlin et al. (2002), Vatsa (2004), Birkmann (2007), Fekete et al.
(2010), McLaughlin and Cooper (2010). It is made apparent that the
detailed information contained in high resolution social data becomes
22
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
useful tools for identifying and monitoring vulnerability over time and
space, for developing an understanding of the processes underlying
vulnerability, for developing and prioritizing strategies to reduce vulnerability, and for determining the effectiveness of those strategies”.
In recent years, several methods and model frameworks have been
developed to better understand the theoretical drivers and applications
of vulnerability. Sarewitz et al. (2003) undertake the policy perspective
in the model. Adger (2006) focuses on global environmental change.
Gallopín (2006) takes on understanding the relationship between vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Eakin and Luers (2006) sought to
understand vulnerability from a social perspective. While Füssel (2007)
is a climate change centric study. Manuel-Navarrete et al. (2007) takes
on both subjects mentioned above by developing an assessment of
vulnerability using a human and environment system. Cutter et al.
(2008) adds to this approach by using a place based model for community resilience. Common themes among publications indicate the
importance of examining vulnerability as a social-ecological perspective, necessity of a place-based study, considerations of vulnerability as
a human equity problem, and the use of these concepts to identify
hazardous areas to inhibit proactive management. Additional publications that support this dynamic approach include Clark and Deininger
(2000), Cutter et al. (2000), O'Brien et al. (2004), Brooks et al. (2005).
influential on assessment results and may prove more useful in mitigation and adaptation planning (Birkmann, 2007; Fekete et al., 2010;
McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010; Seng, 2013; Tavares et al., 2015).
In the literature, the physical and ecological factors of coastal vulnerability are also observed on several spatial scales (Williams and
Kapustka, 2000; Yasué, 2006; Birkmann, 2007; Petrosillo et al., 2010;
Lozoya et al., 2011). The measurement of physical processes such as
storm surge, erosion, and damage to infrastructure occur under a range
of geomorphic scales which can be measured using a wide range of
units, spanning from sub-meter to kilometer. This is discussed in the
works of Morton (1991), Stewart (2003), Pielke et al. (2008), Stockdon
et al. (2009), Klemas (2010), Webersik et al. (2010), Ciavola et al.
(2011). In coastal systems, species interact with one another and the
environment at different spatial scales (Kremen, 2005; Costanza et al.,
2008; Ricketts et al., 2008). In the reviewed literature, ecological vulnerability is centered around investigating ecosystem services at multiple scales as seen in the works of Williams and Kapustka (2000),
Adger et al. (2005a,b), Yasué (2006), Chen et al. (2013), Gosling
(2013). These articles focus on the benefits the natural environment
provide to society as they occur in micro to macro environments. These
include critical habitat for endangered species and aquaculture, flood
mitigation and storm buffering, nutrient load and pollution mitigation
(Costanza et al., 1997; Williams and Kapustka, 2000; Adger et al.,
2005a,b; Costanza et al., 2008; Barbier et al., 2011).
There is consensus among publications that the driving forces of
vulnerability demand investigation at various spatial scales to be fully
understood and interpreted in terms of the risk and exposure they pose
due to the connected and dynamic nature of these systems (Williams
and Kapustka, 2000; Vatsa, 2004; Folke, 2006; Fekete et al., 2010). By
doing so, robust analyses and more accurate conclusions can be made.
This is depicted throughout the literature to determine what makes a
place vulnerable, and how hazards can be mitigated more successfully
(Adger, 2006; Birkmann, 2007; Bunce et al., 2010; Fekete et al., 2010;
McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010).
4.1.1. The physical component
Literature pertaining to physical vulnerability focuses on determining the location of and exposure to natural hazards in the physical environment. Cutter (1996), Borst et al. (2006). The interface
between hazards and the physical environment is manifested in many
aspects of the hydrosphere, geosphere, and atmosphere. Douglas
(2007), Stewart (2003). Vulnerability is largely determined by biophysical and social factors. However, it is also strongly influenced by a
society's dependence on infrastructure such as roads, utilities, airports,
railways, and emergency response facilities (Cutter et al., 2000).
Characteristics of elevation, terrestrial and marine interface, and the
prevailing atmospheric conditions can all be influential parameters of a
natural hazard (Cutter, 1996; Cutter et al., 2000). Hazards take place
over both long and short timescales (Boruff et al., 2005; Wheaton et al.,
2008; Tsakiris et al., 2013).
Modeling physical vulnerability is challenging due to difficulties
acquiring observational data, complexity of structural damage, and
varying spatial and temporal scales (Douglas, 2007). The implications
for exposure, risk, and potential for loss are all dependent on these
physical characteristics. Publications over the past decades have examined many causational factors of risks due to hazards in a multitude
of geographic settings including developed megacities and developing
nations alike (Ebert et al., 2009; Totschnig et al., 2011; Kumar et al.,
2010; Bury et al., 2011). The extensive research performed in the literature described above lays down the foundation of physical vulnerability which allows further investigations of ecological and socioeconomics aspects.
4. The modern components, definition, and application of coastal
vulnerability
4.1. The components of coastal vulnerability
Vulnerability is often used in studies of natural hazards (Janssen
et al., 2006). Blaikie et al. (2014), describe vulnerability as “The
characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural
hazard. It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree
to which someone’s life and livelihood is put at risk by a discrete and
identifiable event in nature or society”. Vulnerability is described as the
degree to which a system is susceptible to and unable to cope with the
adverse effects of a hazard (Sahin and Mohamed, 2014). Resilience is
the ability to resist or recover from economic, infrastructural, or biophysical damage or change (Cutter, 1996). The potential for loss is
geographically dependent and unique to the identified hazard
(Piegorsch et al., 2007). Hazard mitigation is the act to dampen or
avoid risks or exposure from a hazard event Godschalk, 2003; Mileti,
1999).
Modern researchers of vulnerability are faced with obstacles in
developing reliable and accurate methods to portray perceptions of risk
and promote mitigation action (Adger, 2006). For many researchers, for
instance (Rosenzweig and Tubiello, 2006; Jiang and Liu, 2009; Yusuf
and Francisco, 2009; Eriyagama et al., 2010; Webersik et al., 2010),
vulnerability to a hazard is expressed by factors of exposure, sensitivity,
and adaptive capacity. By assigning value to the aspects governing
vulnerability, scholars can undertake more sophisticated modeling approaches. Using indicators and metrics are also ways to conform the
qualitative to the quantitative realm (Yu et al., 2014; Yu and Fang,
2017). As stated by Rygel et al. (2006), “Vulnerability indicators are
4.1.2. The socioeconomic component
Literature examining socioeconomic vulnerability pertains to the
social science aspect of vulnerability studies (Berkes, 1998). This can be
simplified as identifying populations that are less resilient and more
greatly impacted by hazards. Social vulnerability is an advancement
and combination of many anthropological, sociological, and economic
fields as they relate to hazards research (Adger, 2006; Eakin and Luers,
2006; Janssen et al., 2006). Foundations of human vulnerability encompass access to resources, information, and political representation
(Cannon, 1994). As the field of urban vulnerability developed and
furthered itself from physical and ecological constraints, human ecological concepts were utilized to examine the political and societal
causes of social vulnerability (Adger, 2006). Literature in human
ecology sought out explanations why the poor and marginalized populations were more affected by risk of natural hazards as discussed by
23
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
Sultana, 1996; Adger et al., 2005a,b; Brooks et al., 2005; Adger, 2006;
Zou and Wei, 2010). For these reasons, it becomes clear why measuring
institutional and community resilience is so often investigated in the
literature.
Hewitt (1983), Watts and Bohle (1993). The theory of human ecological
endangerment was developed by Hewitt (1997a,b), which states how
less wealthy individuals and households are more likely to live in at risk
areas of urban settlements, thus increasing exposure to flooding, disease, and other persistent stresses. Additionally, women are identified
as having decreased resilience to hazards due to income and livelihood
disparities in many parts of the world (Fordham, 2003).
The basis of literature in the field of social vulnerability identified
specific demographics that are more socially vulnerable. These demographics include broad categories of age, income, health and mental
wellness (McMaster, 1988; O'Brien and Mileti, 1992; Cutter et al.,
2000). There is consensus that no solitary agent can be used to identify
the drivers of vulnerability in the human and natural systems, instead
the optimal parameters are identified on a case by case basis (Berkes,
1998; Adger, 2006). This leads to the concepts that stresses that socialecological systems will depend on the political and economic organization of a society as they interact with environmental management
institutions (Dolsak and Ostrom, 2003). Furthermore, social resilience
is specific to a place, or region as discussed in Cutter et al. (2003) and
Rygel et al. (2006). Much of the applied research utilizes case studies in
specific spatial extents to investigate vulnerability assessment strategies. Location based aspects of economics and food systems have large
roles in a location’s socioeconomic state discussed in Sen (1981), Swift
(1989), Bohle et al. (1994), Blaikie et al. (2014).
Recurring themes in the literature highlight the governing role of
mediating institutional power and structure in hazard management
(Burton, 1993; Tompkins and Adger, 2004),(Eakin, 2005). This perception reinforces the need of well-informed hazard management and
calls for additional research. Moreover, the use of diverse social vulnerability assessment methods and strategies is considered necessary to
optimize the understanding of the large and complex scope of the field
(Eakin and Luers, 2006).
Throughout the literature, socioeconomic status is a widely accepted characteristic that influences social vulnerability (Cutter et al.,
2003). Several influential discuss the role of poverty and political
power in the reduction of resilience to natural hazards works (Platt,
1991; Burton, 1993; Blaikie et al., 1994; Hewitt, 1997a,b; Peacock
et al., 1997; Mitchell, 1999; Cutter et al., 2000; Peacock et al., 2000).
This is based on the idea that wealth in a community, or individuals
allows for more rapid recovery of losses (Cutter et al., 2003). Therefore,
scholars argue that impoverished communities do not have this benefit
and will not recover from hazards as rapidly. Additionally, immigrants,
minorities, and urban communities also face an increased risk and
prolonged losses as a result of complicated evacuation, limited access to
lifelines, and lower education constraints which may reduce understanding of warning information (Cova and Church, 1997; Mitchell,
1999; Cutter et al., 2000; Science and Environment, 2000; Cutter et al.,
2003). Through further development of comprehensive indicator and
assessment methods, advancements in reducing inequality among vulnerable populations may be possible (Bolin and Stanford, 1991;
Peacock et al., 1997; Bolin and Stanford, 1998; Peacock et al., 2000;
Pulido, 2000). Developing learning strategies is also discussed as a
means to reduce vulnerability by effectively informing the public on the
potential negative impacts of a hazard, and engaging them in coming to
solutions on how to mitigate and abate such potentially adverse conditions (Adger et al., 2005a,b; Moser et al., 2012). However, the institutions in the study often carry the burden of managing and maintaining involvement in social welfare policies, community participation
in the policy making process, and cooperation between agencies, and
perhaps most importantly, preparation for hazardous events and post
disaster recovery capabilities (Zou and Wei, 2010). The literature describes institutions as both implicitly and explicitly responsible for the
power structure and disaster planning within a society (Comfort et al.,
1999; Zou and Wei, 2010). This is described as being an important
aspect of building resilient communities because when these social
systems fail vulnerabilities may be exacerbated (Thompson and
4.1.3. The ecological component
The term ecosystem vulnerability is the potential of an ecosystem to
tolerate stressors caused by hazards (Williams and Kapustka, 2000).
These hazards can include anthropogenic factors such as pollution,
contamination, habitat loss, and climate change. They can also include
influences of natural hazards such as hurricanes. Performing ecological
based risk assessments of environmental hazard impacts are important
in environmental management (Chen et al., 2013). This concept is applied to many hierarchical levels including organisms, populations,
communities, ecosystems and landscapes (De Lange et al., 2010). Literature on this topic became prevalent in the 1970s with publications
such as Holling (1973) with an increase in the past two decades (Adger,
2006; De Lange et al., 2010). As defined by Williams and Kapustka
(2000), “Vulnerability of an ecosystems is the ability to modulate its
response to environmental stressors over time and space.”.
The complex features of ecosystems make creating accurate measures of vulnerability and resilience challenging as discussed in Burger
(1997), De Lange et al. (2010). In response to this challenge, studies
focus on understanding several fundamental concepts including likelihood of ecosystem exposure, community structure and functioning,
sensitivity of the community, habitat vulnerability, and recovery capability, as which are referred to as adaptive capacity (Burger, 1997;
Posthuma et al., 2001; Solomon and Takacs, 2002; Van Straalen and
Posthuma, 2002). The consensus also shows suggests the importance of
determining naturalistic value and the socio-economic value of the
exposed ecosystem (Daily, 1997; Daly and Farley, 2004). This ties
closely into ecosystem services, and the use of indicator based assessment models, as discussed in De Lange et al. (2010), Beroya-Eitner
(2016), Hong et al. (2016). Furthermore, in ecological focused studies
will incorporate ecological economics. Which is the field which studies
these connections and the interaction of natural capital and the socioeconomic systems (Daly and Farley, 2004). As these natural ecosystems
are altered, there are repercussions for the social and economic systems
in which they are intertwined (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997).
Ecosystem vulnerability methods in the literature parallels those
used in social vulnerability. Fundamental methods for assessing ecosystem vulnerability will take on an isolated hazard, incorporate the
interaction between biophysical and economic systems, and utilize GIS
to analyze results and represent findings. For example, the Oil
Vulnerability Index (OVI) developed by King and Sanger (1979), is
focused on ecosystem vulnerability to pollution hazards. Additionally,
the quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental change developed by Metzger and Schröter (2006), quantifies social-ecosystem
interactions to future stressors of increased pollution and environmental change. De Chazal et al. (2008) investigates the vulnerability of
socio-ecological systems created by natural hazards. Common themes
among these methods include the use of expert judgement, the input of
stakeholders, and the utilization of ranking and GIS as discussed by De
Lange et al. (2010).
4.2. Coastal vulnerability: the comprehensive approach
As the concept of coastal vulnerability advanced, comprehensive
frameworks and methodologies have improved to model this phenomena (Cooper and McLaughlin, 1998). Modern vulnerability studies
are developed and implemented to create more detailed results of the
spatial distribution of vulnerability, thus allowing for targeted management strategies with increased economic efficiency. Modern literature which examines coastal vulnerability are comprehensive in nature
and consider social, physical, and ecological parameters simultaneously
(Cutter, 1996; Cooper and McLaughlin, 1998; Klein and Nicholls, 1999;
24
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
5. Applied coastal vulnerability at the national and state level
Cutter et al., 2000; McLaughlin et al., 2002; Rygel et al., 2006).
New advancements in data collection include the use of remote
sensing such as photogrammetry and Light Detection And Ranging
(LiDAR) systems (Brock and Purkis, 2009). This becomes extremely
valuable in collecting new spatial data rapidly with high resolution.
LiDAR techniques are common throughout the literature. This has been
applied to the study of coastal inundations hazards as shown in the
works of Tralli et al., (2005). Utilizing remotely sensed information in
vulnerability studies has drastically improved the spatial and temporal
resolution of the physical environment information used in analyses.
Studies such as Stockdon et al. (2009) which highlights the importance
of the morphology of dunes in assessing vulnerability of coastal environments. Many other studies describe the use of remote sensing and
LiDAR to not only characterize beaches and beach dynamics but to
identify flood prone areas and determine coastal storm impacts
(Cracknell, 1999; Klemas, 2009, 2010, 2014). Remote sensing in the
form of satellite imagery, aerial photography, and normalized vegetation indices are techniques that are used to track coastal morphodynamics and ecosystems over time. These techniques are used to study
vegetation, sediment transport, and track coastal dynamics on time
intervals covering single storm events to seasonal variation (Brivio
et al., 2002; White and Wang, 2003; Klemas, 2010).
In the reviewed literature of comprehensive coastal vulnerability,
social considerations in studies focus on the collection and interpretation of demographic data. Due to the importance of social parameters,
when looking at various spatial extents it is common to use county,
census tract, or block group data, depending on the finest resolution of
data available. In most studies, the demographic data was classified
using various sources, such as the U.S. Census, or the American
Community Survey, as seen in the work of Cooper and McLaughlin
(1998), McLaughlin et al. (2002), Cutter et al. (2000), Alwang et al.
(2001).
Ecological and physical vulnerability concepts in coastal vulnerability literature are quite alike. Data is collected in the field in various
ways, such as buoy and weather stations, wetland delineation, and GPS
surveys as seen in Burger (1997), Posthuma et al. (2001), Solomon and
Takacs (2002), Boruff et al. (2005), Douglas (2007), Glahn et al. (2009),
De Lange et al. (2010). In situ data collection, can be impractical for
large spatial areas. Remote sensing offers a highly efficient way to
collect data and is widely used in coastal ecological studies as discussed
above.
Literature within coastal vulnerability and emergency management
planning now use GIS as the standard tool for data processing, analysis,
and visualization (Cutter et al., 2000; O'Brien et al., 2004). Studies on
the identification of the spatial distribution of hazards and vulnerable
populations utilized GIS to produce more comprehensive information
and perform more sophisticated analyses (Yohe and Tol, 2002; o’Brien
et al., 2004; Brooks et al., 2005; Ebert et al., 2009). Additionally, the
literature shows the capability of GIS to examine vulnerability at various scales. This is beneficial because the resolution and scope of a
study may incorporate data of both large and small spatial extents
(Cutter et al., 2003). Literature utilizing GIS in vulnerability settings
includes topics of modeling community evacuation (Cova and Church,
1997), and Eastern United States vulnerability to coastal hazards and
erosion (Boruff et al., 2005).
In conclusion, consensus among modern literature describes the use
of several methods of assessing social, economic, ecological, and physical vulnerability in a comprehensive manner. Information is represented utilizing in situ and remotely sensed data in GIS environments. Coastal hazards associated with sea level rise, climate change
influencing wetland ecosystems, and storm impacts on social and
physical spheres are the emphases of modern studies as seen in Aswani
et al. (2017), Schliephack and Dickinson (2017), Jankowski et al.
(2017), Mahapatra et al. (2017), Gabler et al. (2017).
5.1. Hazard mitigation
Coastal hazard mitigation is often described as long-term efforts and
actions to dampen the risks and consequences of natural hazards in the
coastal environment (Gares et al., 1994; Nordstrom, 1994; Agency,
1997; Pope, 1997; Godschalk, 2003; Godschalk et al., 2003; Berke and
Smith, 2009). Coastal mitigation can be manifested in several ways,
including development of hard and soft structures, sediment management, and regulation of land use and building codes (Pilkey and Wright,
1988; Hall and Pilkey, 1991; Klein et al., 2005). The information acquired from comprehensive vulnerability assessments is frequently used
in the literature to develop mitigation strategies to best abate the anticipated hazard in a way that best fits into the local setting. The
overarching goal of mitigation planning is to prepare for a hazard event
over the long term to reduce loses, rather than respond to the emergency over the short term. The literature reviewed in the mitigation
sphere of coastal hazard management can be organized into three main
categories of abating physical coastal processes that increase vulnerability, management of natural resources to improve resilience, and
mitigation plan development (Race and Christie, 1982; Pilkey and
Wright, 1988; Berke and French, 1994; Pope, 1997; Burby et al., 1999;
Dias et al., 2003; Godschalk et al., 2003; Costanza et al., 2008; Peacock
et al., 2008; Berke and Smith, 2009; Gedan et al., 2011; Berke et al.,
2012). These three aspects come together in the literature to give insight into sustainable economic development in coastal areas (Costanza
et al., 2008; Raaijmakers et al., 2008; Berke and Smith, 2009; Frigerio
and De Amicis, 2016; Rulleau and Rey-Valette, 2017).
Mitigation planning is well represented throughout literature
(Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Nordstrom and Lotstein, 1989; Kraus et al.,
1995; Burby et al., 1999; Tang et al., 2008; Berke and Smith, 2009;
Berke et al., 2012). In these publications, the relationship between
federal, state, and local entities is described as a collaborative effort
(Berke and French, 1994; Berke et al., 2012). The implementation of the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 was a driving force in many states
developing mitigation plans. Mitigation plans serve the important
purpose of improving state and local coordination, and developing
more resilient communities (Deyle and Smith, 1998; Burby et al., 1999;
Godschalk, 2003; Peacock et al., 2008; Beatley, 2012; Berke et al.,
2012). Federal legislation provides guidance and incentive for states to
act to move towards resiliency (Berke et al., 2012). For example, the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 was developed in response to increased
disaster loses in the United States in an attempt to more effectively use
federal mitigation funding at the state and local level (Godschalk et al.,
2003; Berke et al., 2012). This act represents the development of a more
proactive approach to disaster prevention and emergency management.
Due to the unique and often frequent occurrence of hazard events in
coastal states, mitigation planning is particularly important (Berke
et al., 2012). State specific hazard mitigation plans are often complementary to other federal plans such as the FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Plan which provides concepts and protocols for developing and evaluating mitigation plans. Important principals in such plans include establishing goals for hazard reduction and state and local coordination,
performing comprehensive hazard and vulnerability assessments, promoting education and awareness, and developing relevant regulations,
incentives, and protocols, and interorganizational coordination (Berke
et al., 2012). An example of such a plan is the State of New Jersey state
mitigation plan made available in 2007. Throughout the reviewed literature discussions and arguments are made on how these plans can be
compared, contrasted, and improved as seen in the works of Pilkey and
Wright (1988), Nordstrom and Lotstein (1989), Kraus et al. (1995),
Burby et al., (1999), Tang et al. (2008), Berke and Smith (2009), Berke
et al. (2012).
Mitigation action in the coastal zone often targets the hazards of
storm surge inundation, wave action, and erosion (Nordstrom and
25
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
knowledge.
Lotstein, 1989; Gares et al., 1994; Nordstrom, 1994; Kraus et al., 1995;
Agency, 1997). These hazards are abated using a variety of techniques
including regulation, structure development, and natural resource restoration (Gares et al., 1994; Pope, 1997; Dias et al., 2003). Regulation
consists of the management and enforcement of land use regulation,
building codes and standard, all with implications of the National Flood
Insurance Program (Hawes, 1998; Beatley, 2012; Berke et al., 2012). In
the mitigation literature, structure development is described as the
construction of a man-made feature to alter the littoral transport and
erosion of sediment, and also to dampen destructive wave energy (Hall
and Pilkey, 1991; Gares et al., 1994; Godschalk, 2003; Godschalk et al.,
2009). This is most often seen in coastal landscapes as groins, jetties,
and breakwaters. Although these structures often serve their purpose in
the short term, on longer time scales they may pose additional interference and negative impacts to natural sediment systems (Hall and
Pilkey, 1991; Kraus et al., 1995). Additionally, beach nourishment
projects often compensate for these losses, however as the literature
describes, these are only short-term solutions to a long term problem
(Nordstrom, 1994; Kates, 1997). In the literature, restoration of natural
resources such as salt marshes and barrier islands is often looked upon
as a favorable solution to the issues of hard structures, as described in
the works of Race and Christie (1982), Dias et al. (2003), Costanza et al.
(2008), Gedan et al. (2011). The benefits of restoring natural biophysical systems is however at risk of being diminished by economic feasibility and developed land constraints (Race and Christie, 1982; Kates,
1997; Godschalk, 2003; Godschalk et al., 2009; Gedan et al., 2011). The
reviewed literature suggests that there is no simple fix to coastal hazard
mitigation and successful strategies integrate a suite of efforts with
holistic considerations of the human-environment system (Gares et al.,
1994; Pope, 1997; Costanza et al., 2008).
5.3. Coastal Vulnerability in New Jersey
New Jersey is an ideal location to study vulnerability and resilience
to coastal hazards. It contains 127 miles of coastline along the Atlantic
Ocean and nearly 2000 miles of estuarine habitat. The coastal zone
characteristics of the state ranges widely in terms of population density,
development, and shoreline type. The coastal counties of New Jersey
are heavily populated with nearly 2 million residents which rapidly
increases during the warmer parts of the year. The transportation systems of New Jersey and neighboring states of New York and
Pennsylvania provide a way for tourists from urban areas within the
State and nearby New York City and Philadelphia to support the $16
billion a year tourism industry. The coastal resources of the state also
support the $2.1 billion per year commercial fisheries industry and the
$50 billion per year maritime industry, as cited in the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Management Plan
(NJDEP: CMP 2011). The coastal regions of New Jersey are not only the
major economic driver of the state but also a provide critical habitat for
many species including those that are threatened and endangered.
Located along the Atlantic Ocean, New Jersey is exposed to the
direct and indirect landfall of tropical and extratropical cyclones
throughout the year. This has cost the state $40 billion from Hurricane
Sandy along in estimated damage to property, infrastructure, and utilities. In addition to coastal storms, New Jersey also faces the threats of
sea level rise. Which will compound the hazards of storm surge and
inundation in the future. Erosion is another factor that is influencing
coastal vulnerability in New Jersey. The vast amount of coastal development and implementation of hard structures such as jetties groins
and breakwaters create a powerful anthropogenic force on sediment
dynamics and various littoral processes in the coastal zone.
The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Office of Land Use Management contains the New Jersey Coastal
Management Program (NJCMP). This program covers coastal issues of
sustainable community planning, climate change, and energy facility
development and is the center of coastal vulnerability management in
the State of New Jersey. The role of this office in critical in supplying
local and state government officials with aggregated scientific data and
information. This program provides tools such as New Jersey’s Coastal
Community Assessment Mapping Protocol which guides individual and
community stakeholder information on how to assess their vulnerability to coastal hazards. In conjunction with other New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, such as the office of GIS, it is
possible for individuals, academic institutions, and community planners
to gain data and information for vulnerability and resiliency planning
research. Federal management support is made available through data
sharing and collaborative research with the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United
States Geological Survey. Non-governmental and nonprofit organizations also play roles in community engagement and education. All these
collaboration and integration are important concepts in building resiliency for New Jersey’s coastal communities. In this work, we use New
Jersey to briefly discuss the connection between the scientific community and the environmental management at the state level. We
choose New Jersey because of its high population density along its
coasts, economic importance of coastal resources such as maritime
trade and tourisms, and has recently been subjected to a major coastal
hazard event, Hurricane Sandy. New Jersey serves as a good example of
describing the conceptual evolution of coastal vulnerability because it
has been an ongoing arena of coastal zone development for many
decades. This is clear in its history of erosion mitigation and in its potential for implementation of sophisticated mitigation and adaptation
strategies in the future.
5.2. Applied coastal vulnerability in the United States
Literature describing coastal vulnerability and resilience in the
United States is published by several government agencies. These most
commonly include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), the U.S. Geological
Survey, and the National Weather Service.
Frequently referenced literature includes the Coastal Risk Reduction
and Resilience publication by USACE (Bridges et al., 2013) (USACE).
This document describes in great detail the economic importance of
ports, fisheries, and coastal areas. Additionally, the driving forces behind the physical exposure factors that cause damage during severe
coastal storms are discussed. This information is used by state and local
emergency managers as they plan for and mitigate natural hazard
events.
FEMA produced the Multi-hazard identification and risk assessment
(Agency, 1997), which is useful for many stakeholders who aim to
understand vulnerability and move towards resilience. This document
outlines many types of natural hazards, including earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. By making in in depth information available, citizen stakeholders and community planners can grasp the hazards they
may face, and begin mitigation.
Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings by
FEMA (Gromala et al., 2010), and the Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping
Program are two heavily used documentations and data sources, which
thoroughly outline the risks and damage potential of residential
buildings during hazardous storm events. These works are commonly
used by community planners, engineers, and insurance companies to
manage the risks associated by coastal storms and inundations.
The purpose of these publications and studies is to guide policy and
inform the public. The concepts and methodologies used in these
publications is based in the academic literature discussed above as well
as internal scientific research. Similar supporting literature exists at the
state level, which adopt this federal guidance with local level data and
26
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
6. Conclusions
Berkes, F., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability.
In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–26.
Beroya-Eitner, M.A., 2016. Ecological vulnerability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 60, 329–334.
Birkmann, J., 2007. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability,
usefulness and policy implications. Environ. Hazards 7 (1), 20–31.
Blaikie, P., et al., 1994. Disaster pressure and release model. At Risk: Natural Hazards,
People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. pp. 21–45.
Blaikie, P., et al., 2014. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters.
Routledge.
Bohle, H.G., et al., 1994. Climate change and social vulnerability: toward a sociology and
geography of food insecurity. Glob. Environ. Change 4 (1), 37–48.
Bolin, R., Stanford, L., 1991. Shelter, housing and recovery: a comparison of US disasters.
Disasters 15 (1), 24–34.
Bolin, R., Stanford, L., 1998. The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability, Sustainability,
and Social Change. Routledge, New York, NY.
Borrego, C., 1970. Integrated coastal zone strategy: need for a more quantitative approach. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 15.
Borst, D., et al., 2006. Development of a methodology to assess man-made risks in
Germany. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6 (5), 779–802.
Boruff, B.J., et al., 2005. Erosion hazard vulnerability of US coastal counties. J. Coast.
Res. 932–942.
Bridges, T., et al., 2013. US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Risk Reduction and
Resilience. CWTS 2013 - 3. Directorate of Civil Works, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Brivio, P., et al., 2002. Integration of remote sensing data and GIS for accurate mapping of
flooded areas. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23 (3), 429–441.
Brock, J.C., Purkis, S.J., 2009. The emerging role of lidar remote sensing in coastal research and resource management. J. Coast. Res.
Brooks, N., et al., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the
national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 15 (2),
151–163.
Bunce, M., et al., 2010. Policy misfits, climate change and cross-scale vulnerability in
coastal Africa: how development projects undermine resilience. Environ. Sci. Policy
13 (6), 485–497.
Burby, R.J., et al., 1999. Unleashing the power of planning to create disaster-resistant
communities. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 65 (3), 247–258.
Burger, J., 1997. Methods for and approaches to evaluating susceptibility of ecological
systems to hazardous chemicals. Environ. Health Perspect. 105 (4), 843.
Burton, I., 1993. The Environment as Hazard. Guilford Press.
Burton, C.G., 2010. Social vulnerability and hurricane impact modeling. Nat. Hazards
Rev. 11 (2), 58–68.
Bury, J.T., et al., 2011. Glacier recession and human vulnerability in the Yanamarey
watershed of the Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Clim. Change 105 (1–2), 179–206.
Cannon, T., 1994. Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of ‘natural’disasters.
Disasters, Development and Environment. pp. 13–30.
Cash, D.W., Moser, S.C., 2000. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob. Environ. Change 10 (2), 109–120.
Chen, S., et al., 2013. Ecological risk assessment on the system scale: a review of state-ofthe-art models and future perspectives. Ecol. Modell. 250, 25–33.
Ciavola, P., et al., 2011. Storm impacts along European coastlines. Part 1: the joint effort
of the MICORE and ConHaz projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 (7), 912–923.
Clark, R.M., Deininger, R.A., 2000. Protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure: the
vulnerability of US water supply systems. J. Conting. Crisis Manage. 8 (2), 73–80.
Comfort, L., et al., 1999. Reframing disaster policy: the global evolution of vulnerable
communities. Glob. Environ. Change Part B: Environ. Hazards 1 (1), 39–44.
Cooper, J., McLaughlin, S., 1998. Contemporary multidisciplinary approaches to coastal
classification and environmental risk analysis. J. Coast. Res. 512–524.
Costanza, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature 387 (6630), 253–260.
Costanza, R., et al., 2008. The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. AMBIO:
A J. Hum. Environ. 37 (4), 241–248.
Cova, T.J., Church, R.L., 1997. Modelling community evacuation vulnerability using GIS.
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 11 (8), 763–784.
Coyle, R., Alexander, M., 1997. Two approaches to qualitative modeling of a nation's
drugs trade. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 13 (3), 205–222.
Coyle, J., et al., 1999. System dynamics in defence analysis: some case studies. J. Oper.
Res. Soc. 50 (4), 372–382.
Coyle, G., 1998. The practice of system dynamics: milestones, lessons and ideas from 30
years experience. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 14 (4), 343–365.
Cracknell, A., 1999. Remote sensing techniques in estuaries and coastal zones an update.
Int. J. Remote Sens. 20 (3), 485–496.
Cutter, S.L., et al., 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of
Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90 (4), 713–737.
Cutter, S.L., et al., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84 (2),
242–261.
Cutter, S.L., et al., 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to
natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (4), 598–606.
Cutter, S.L., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progr. Hum. Geogr. 20 (4),
529–539.
Daily, G., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press.
Daly, H., Farley, J., 2004. Ecological Economics: Principles and Practice. Island Press,
Washington, DC, USA.
De Chazal, J., et al., 2008. Including multiple differing stakeholder values into
This article examines over 200 coastal vulnerability related works.
Through this extensive literature review, this research describes the
evolution of vulnerability concepts, and the modern definition of vulnerability with the goal of providing a well-informed body of knowledge to be used in the advancement of resilience and increased sustainability. The information described in this document can be used by
academic research and applied vulnerability managers.
As the major influence publications have shown, the scientific pillars of the ecological, physical, and socioeconomic fields have developed concurrently and have eventually come together. By doing so, the
advances in methodology, computational power, and data collection
have progressed to allow researchers in public, private, and academic
sectors to more fully understand vulnerability to natural hazards in
coastal environments.
As the study of coastal vulnerability continues to advance, we anticipate the systems involved to be examined in an increasingly holistic
matter. Furthermore, the modeling approaches used in this research
will continue to paint a more detailed picture of the complex biophysical and economic interconnected systems that determine the geographical delineation of coastal vulnerability. Vulnerability to coastal
hazards has been an evolving concept for several decades. Its research
scope and application can be applied on many scales and settings. By
aggregating, synthesizing, and reviewing this body of knowledge we
aim to make this suite of complex concepts and applications more accessible to fellow academics, environmental managers, and the greater
public.
Acknowledgements
The work is financially sponsored by the National Natural
ScienceFoundation of China’s Regional Grant “Studies of urban vulnerability based on microgeographicunits via spatial data analysis and
geocomputation” (grant number 41461035), and “Tianshan Scholar”
from Xinjiang University and a grant supported by the National Nature
Science Foundation of China, “Orderly population dynamics and rationality study under the background of Priority Development Zoning”
(grant number 71373275).
References
Adger, W.N., et al., 2005a. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob.
Environ. Change 15 (2), 77–86.
Adger, W.N., et al., 2005b. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309
(5737), 1036–1039.
Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16 (3), 268–281.
Agency, U.S.F.E.M, 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Aguirre, B.E., 1991. Evacuation in Cancun during hurricane Gilbert. Int. J. Mass Emerg.
Disasters 9 (1), 31–45.
Ahmad, S., Simonovic, S.P., 2004. Spatial system dynamics: new approach for simulation
of water resources systems. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 18 (4), 331–340.
Allen, P.M., 1988. Dynamic models of evolving systems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 4 (1–2), 109–130.
Alwang, J., et al., 2001. Vulnerability: A View from Different Disciplines, Social
Protection Discussion Paper Series.
Aswani, S., et al., 2017. Environmental and social recovery asymmetries to large-scale
disturbances in small island communities. Nat. Hazards 86 (1), 241–262.
Atkinson, P.M., Tate, N.J., 2000. Spatial scale problems and geostatistical solutions: a
review. Prof. Geogr. 52 (4), 607–623.
Barbier, E.B., et al., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol.
Monogr. 81 (2), 169–193.
Beatley, T., 2012. Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times.
Island Press.
Bec, A., et al., 2016. Community resilience to long-term tourism decline and rejuvenation:
a literature review and conceptual model. Curr. Issue Tour. 19 (5), 431–457.
Berke, P.R., French, S.P., 1994. The influence of state planning mandates on local plan
quality. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 13 (4), 237–250.
Berke, P., Smith, G., 2009. Hazard mitigation, planning, and disaster resiliency: challenges and strategic choices for the 21st century. Building Safer Communities. Risk
Governance, Spatial Planning and Responses to Natural Hazards, vol. 1. pp. 18.
Berke, P., et al., 2012. Planning for resiliency: evaluation of state hazard mitigation plans
under the disaster mitigation act. Nat. Hazards Rev. 13 (2), 139–149.
27
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
Jersey. J. Coast. Res. 771–785.
Hapke, C., Richmond, B., 2000. Monitoring beach morphology changes using smallformat aerial photography and digital softcopy photogrammetry. Environ. Geosci. 7
(1), 32–37.
Hawes, E.P., 1998. Coastal natural hazards mitigation: the erosion of regulatory retreat in
South Carolina. SC Envtl. LJ 7, 55.
Henry, K.D., et al., 2017. Influence of road network and population demand assumptions
in evacuation modeling for distant tsunamis. Nat. Hazards 85 (3), 1665–1687.
Hewitt, K., 1983. Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology.
Hewitt, K., 1997a. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Approach to Disasters. Addison
Wesley Longman, London.
Hewitt, K., 1997b. Regions of Risk: Hazards, Vulnerability and Disaster. Addison Wesley
Longman, London.
Hirsch, G.B., et al., 2007. Using system dynamics modeling to understand the impact of
social change initiatives. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 39 (3–4), 239–253.
Hoard, M., et al., 2005. Systems modeling in support of evidence-based disaster planning
for rural areas. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 208 (1), 117–125.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4
(1), 1–23.
Homer, J.B., Hirsch, G.B., 2006. System dynamics modeling for public health: background
and opportunities. Am. J. Publ. Health 96 (3), 452–458.
Hong, W., et al., 2016. Establishing an ecological vulnerability assessment indicator
system for spatial recognition and management of ecologically vulnerable areas in
highly urbanized regions: a case study of Shenzhen, China. Ecol. Indic. 69, 540–547.
Jankowski, K.L., et al., 2017. Vulnerability of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands to present-day
rates of relative sea-level rise. Nat. Commun. 8, 14792.
Jankowski, P., 2009. Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (6),
1966–1971.
Janssen, M.A., et al., 2006. Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation
within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Glob. Environ.
Change 16 (3), 240–252.
Jiang, D.-M., Liu, B., 2009. Countermeasures of adaptation to climate change: establishment and application for implementation matrix. Ecol. Econ. 5 (2), 102–111.
Kahen, G., 1970. Disaster prevention and management: an academic challenge for disaster prone developing countries. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 17.
Kates, R.W., 1997. Climate change 1995: impacts, adaptations, and mitigation. Environ.:
Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 39 (9), 29–33.
Kidson, C., 1950. Dawlish Warren: A Study of the Evolution of the Sand Spits Across the
Mouth of the River Exe in Devon. Transactions and Papers (Institute of British
Geographers, pp. 69–80 (16).
King, J.G., Sanger, G.A., 1979. Oil vulnerability index for marine oriented birds. Conserv.
Mar. Birds North. N. Am. 11, 227–239.
Klein, R.J., Nicholls, R.J., 1999. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change.
Ambio 182–187.
Klein, R.J., et al., 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (6), 579–588.
Klemas, V.V., 2009. The role of remote sensing in predicting and determining coastal
storm impacts. J. Coast. Res. 1264–1275.
Klemas, V., 2010. Remote sensing techniques for studying coastal ecosystems: an overview. J. Coast. Res. 27 (1), 2–17.
Klemas, V., 2014. Remote sensing of floods and flood-prone areas: an overview. J. Coast.
Res. 31 (4), 1005–1013.
Kraus, N.C., et al., 1995. Modern functional design of groin systems. Coast. Eng.
1327–1342 1994.
Kremen, C., 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their
ecology? Ecol. Lett. 8 (5), 468–479.
Kumar, T.S., et al., 2010. Coastal vulnerability assessment for Orissa State, east coast of
India. J. Coast. Res. 523–534.
Lemieux, C.J., et al., 2014. From science to policy: the making of a watershed-scale climate change adaptation strategy. Environ. Sci. Policy 42, 123–137.
Levine, A.S., Feinholz, C.L., 2015. Participatory GIS to inform coral reef ecosystem
management: mapping human coastal and ocean uses in Hawaii. Appl. Geogr. 59,
60–69.
Li, L., Simonovic, S., 2002. System dynamics model for predicting floods from snowmelt
in North American prairie watersheds. Hydrol. Process. 16 (13), 2645–2666.
Liddle, M.J., 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on
natural ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7 (1), 17–36.
Liu, Y., et al., 2007. An integrated GIS-based analysis system for land-use management of
lake areas in urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plann. 82 (4), 233–246.
Lozoya, J.P., et al., 2011. A methodological framework for multi-hazard risk assessment
in beaches. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 (6), 685–696.
Mahapatra, M., et al., 2017. Storm surge vulnerability assessment of Saurashtra coast,
Gujarat, using GIS techniques. Nat. Hazards 86 (2), 821–831.
Manuel-Navarrete, D., et al., 2007. Syndromes of sustainability of development for assessing the vulnerability of coupled human-environmental systems. The case of hydrometeorological disasters in Central America and the Caribbean. Glob. Environ.
Change 17 (2), 207–217.
McLaughlin, S., Cooper, J.A.G., 2010. A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: a tool for
coastal managers? Environ. Hazards 9 (3), 233–248.
McLaughlin, S., et al., 2002. Socio-economic data in coastal vulnerability indices: constraints and opportunities. J. Coast. Res. 36 (Special issue), 487–497.
McMaster, R.B., 1988. Modeling community vulnerability to hazardous materials using
geographic information systems. Proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on
Spatial Data Handling.
Metzger, M.J., Schröter, D., 2006. Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative
vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (3),
508–520.
De Lange, H., et al., 2010. Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment—a review and
perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (18), 3871–3879.
De Sherbinin, A., et al., 2007. The vulnerability of global cities to climate hazards.
Environ. Urban. 19 (1), 39–64.
Deyle, R.E., Smith, R.A., 1998. Local government compliance with state planning mandates: the effects of state implementation in Florida. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 64 (4),
457–469.
Dias, J.A., et al., 2003. Evaluation of soft protection techniques in barrier islands by
monitoring programs: case studies from Ria Formosa (Algarve-Portugal). J. Coast.
Res. 117–131.
Dolsak, N., Ostrom, E., 2003. The challenges of the commons. The Commons in the New
Millennium: Challenges and Adaptations. pp. 3–34.
Domeisen, N., 1962. Disasters: threat to social development. Civ. Eng.=Siviele
Ingenieurswese 4 (3), 21–23.
Douglas, J., 2007. Physical vulnerability modelling in natural hazard risk assessment.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 7 (2), 283–288.
Dyson, B., Chang, N.-B., 2005. Forecasting municipal solid waste generation in a fastgrowing urban region with system dynamics modeling. Waste Manage. 25 (7),
669–679.
Eakin, H., Luers, A.L., 2006. Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31.
Eakin, H., 2005. Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from
Central Mexico. World Dev. 33 (11), 1923–1938.
Ebert, A., et al., 2009. Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical proxies and
spatial metrics derived from air-and spaceborne imagery and GIS data. Nat. Hazards
48 (2), 275–294.
Egoh, B., et al., 2007. Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a
review. Ecol. Econ. 63 (4), 714–721.
Eriyagama, N., et al., 2010. Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources and
Agriculture in Sri Lanka: A Review and Preliminary Vulnerability Mapping. IWMI.
Füssel, H.-M., 2007. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (2), 155–167.
Fekete, A., et al., 2010. Scales as a challenge for vulnerability assessment. Nat. Hazards 55
(3), 729–747.
Feng, Y., et al., 2013. System dynamics modeling for urban energy consumption and CO2
emissions: a case study of Beijing, China. Ecol. Modell. 252, 44–52.
Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16 (3), 253–267.
Fordham, M., 2003. Gender, Disaster and Development. Natural Disasters and
Development in a Globalizing World. Routledge, London, pp. 57–74.
Forrester, J., 1961. Industrial Dynamics and Principles of Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Forrester, J.W., 1968. Industrial dynamics—after the first decade. Manage. Sci. 14 (7),
398–415.
Forrester, J.W., 1971a. Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 3, 1–22.
Forrester, J.W., 1971b. World Dynamics. Wright-Allen Press.
Forrester, J.W., 1970. Urban dynamics, IMR. Ind. Manage. Rev. (pre-1986) 11 (3), 67.
Forrester, J.W., 1992. Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 59 (1), 42–63.
Forrester, J.W., 1993. System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. A Systems-Based
Approach to Policymaking. Springer, pp. 199–240.
Forrester, J.W., 1994. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10
(2–3), 245–256.
Forrester, J.W., 1995. The Beginning of System Dynamics. McKinsey Quarterly, pp. 4–17.
Frigerio, I., De Amicis, M., 2016. Mapping social vulnerability to natural hazards in Italy:
a suitable tool for risk mitigation strategies. Environ. Sci. Policy 63, 187–196.
Gabler, C.A., et al., 2017. Macroclimatic change expected to transform coastal wetland
ecosystems this century. Nat. Clim. Change 7 (2), 142–147.
Gallopín, G.C., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Glob. Environ. Change 16 (3), 293–303.
Gares, P.A., et al., 1994. Geomorphology and natural hazards. Geomorphology 10 (1–4),
1–18.
Gedan, K.B., et al., 2011. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in
protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim. Change
106 (1), 7–29.
Ghaffarzadegan, N., et al., 2011. How small system dynamics models can help the public
policy process. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 27 (1), 22–44.
Glahn, B., et al., 2009. The role of the SLOSH model in National Weather Service storm
surge forecasting. Natl. Weather Digest 33 (1), 3–14.
Godschalk, D.R., et al., 2003. Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy
formation: challenges for comprehensive planning. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 46 (5),
733–754.
Godschalk, D.R., et al., 2009. Estimating the value of foresight: aggregate analysis of
natural hazard mitigation benefits and costs. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 52 (6),
739–756.
Godschalk, D.R., 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat. Hazards
Rev. 4 (3), 136–143.
Goldberg, E.D., 1994. Coastal Zone Space Prelude to Conflict. United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
Gosling, S.N., 2013. The likelihood and potential impact of future change in the largescale climate-earth system on ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 27, S15–S31.
Gromala, D., et al., 2010. Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings.
FEMA, Washington, DC.
Hall, M.J., Pilkey, O.H., 1991. Effects of hard stabilization on dry beach width for New
28
Environmental Science and Policy 82 (2018) 19–29
A. Bevacqua et al.
Seng, D.S.C., 2013. Tsunami resilience: multi-level institutional arrangements, architectures and system of governance for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia.
Environ. Sci. Policy 29, 57–70.
Senge, P.M., Forrester, J.W., 1980. Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics
Models, vol. 14. System Dynamics, TIMS Studies in Management Sciences, pp.
209–228.
Simonovic, S.P., Ahmad, S., 2005. Computer-based model for flood evacuation emergency
planning. Nat. Hazards 34 (1), 25–51.
Solomon, K., Takacs, P., 2002. Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Chapter
15, 285–313.
Stewart, M.G., 2003. Cyclone damage and temporal changes to building vulnerability and
economic risks for residential construction. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (5),
671–691.
Stockdon, H.F., et al., 2009. Extraction of lidar-based dune-crest elevations for use in
examining the vulnerability of beaches to inundation during hurricanes. J. Coast. Res.
59–65.
Swift, J., 1989. Why are rural people vulnerable to famine? IDS Bull. 20 (2), 8–15.
Tang, Z., et al., 2008. Measuring tsunami planning capacity on US Pacific coast. Nat.
Hazards Rev. 9 (2), 91–100.
Tavares, A.O., et al., 2015. Flooding hazard in the Tagus estuarine area: the challenge of
scale in vulnerability assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 238–255.
Ten, C.-W., et al., 2007. Vulnerability assessment of cybersecurity for SCADA systems
using attack trees. In: Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2007. IEEE. IEEE.
Thompson, P.M., Sultana, P., 1996. Distributional and social impacts of flood control in
Bangladesh. Geogr. J. 1–13.
Tompkins, E., Adger, W.N., 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc. 9 (2).
Torresan, S., et al., 2008. Assessing coastal vulnerability to climate change: comparing
segmentation at global and regional scales. Sustain. Sci. 3 (1), 45–65.
Totschnig, R., et al., 2011. A quantitative vulnerability function for fluvial sediment
transport. Nat. Hazards 58 (2), 681–703.
Tralli, D.M., et al., 2005. Satellite remote sensing of earthquake, volcano, flood, landslide
and coastal inundation hazards. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 59 (4),
185–198.
Tsakiris, G., et al., 2013. A system-based paradigm of drought analysis for operational
management. Water Resour. Manage. 27 (15), 5281–5297.
Uyarra, M.C., et al., 2005. Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental features: implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environ. Conserv.
32 (1), 11–19.
Vajjhala, S., 2006. Ground Truthing Policy: Using Participatory Map-Making to Connect
Citizens and Decision Makers, vol. 162. Resources, Washington, DC, pp. 14.
Valdemoro, H., et al., 1970. Vulnerability of wetlands to coastal changes. A methodological approach with application to the Ebro delta. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 46.
Van Straalen, N., Posthuma, L., 2002. Theory of Ecological Risk Assessment Based on
Species Sensitivity Distributions.
Vatsa, K.S., 2004. Risk, vulnerability, and asset-based approach to disaster risk management. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 24 (10/11), 1–48.
Wang, C., Yarnal, B., 2012. The vulnerability of the elderly to hurricane hazards in
Sarasota, Florida. Nat. Hazards 63 (2), 349–373.
Watts, M.J., Bohle, H.G., 1993. The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger
and famine. Progr. Hum. Geogr. 17 (1), 43–67.
Webersik, C., et al., 2010. The economic impact of future increase in tropical cyclones in
Japan. Nat. Hazards 55 (2), 233–250.
Wheaton, E., et al., 2008. Dry times: hard lessons from the Canadian drought of 2001 and
2002. Can. Geogr./Le Géographe canadien 52 (2), 241–262.
White, S.A., Wang, Y., 2003. Utilizing DEMs derived from LIDAR data to analyze morphologic change in the North Carolina coastline. Remote Sens. Environ. 85 (1),
39–47.
Williams, L.R., Kapustka, L.A., 2000. Ecosystem vulnerability: a complex interface with
technical components. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19 (4), 1055–1058.
Winz, I., et al., 2009. The use of system dynamics simulation in water resources management. Water Resour. Manage. 23 (7), 1301–1323.
Wu, G., et al., 2013. A dynamic model for vulnerability assessment of regional water
resources in arid areas: a case study of Bayingolin, China. Water Resour. Manage. 27
(8), 3085–3101.
Wynja, V., et al., 2014. Mapping coastal information across Canada’s northern regions
based on low-altitude helicopter videography in support of environmental emergency
preparedness efforts. J. Coast. Res. 31 (2), 276–290.
Xu, Z., Coors, V., 2012. Combining system dynamics model, GIS and 3D visualization in
sustainability assessment of urban residential development. Build. Environ. 47,
272–287.
Yasué, M., 2006. Environmental factors and spatial scale influence shorebirds’ responses
to human disturbance. Biol. Conserv. 128 (1), 47–54.
Yohe, G., Tol, R.S., 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity—moving
toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Change 12 (1),
25–40.
Yu, D., Fang, C., 2017. The dynamics of public safety in cities: a case study of Shanghai
from 2010 to 2025. Habitat Int. 69, 104–113.
Yu, D., et al., 2014. Assessing urban public safety via indicator-based evaluating method:
a systemic view of Shanghai. Soc. Indic. Res. 117 (1), 89–104.
Yusuf, A.A., Francisco, H., 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast
Asia.
Zou, L.-L., Wei, Y.-M., 2010. Driving factors for social vulnerability to coastal hazards in
Southeast Asia: results from the meta-analysis. Nat. Hazards 54 (3), 901–929.
vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe. Reg. Environ. Change 6
(4), 201–216.
Mileti, D., 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United
States. Joseph Henry Press.
Mirchi, A., et al., 2012. Synthesis of system dynamics tools for holistic conceptualization
of water resources problems. Water Resour. Manage. 26 (9), 2421–2442.
Mitchell, J., 1999. Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and Disasters in Transition. United
Nations University Press.
Moreno, A., Becken, S., 2009. A climate change vulnerability assessment methodology for
coastal tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 17 (4), 473–488.
Morton, R.A., 1991. Accurate shoreline mapping: past, present, and future. In: Coastal
Sediments. ASCE.
Moser, S.C., et al., 2012. Wicked challenges at land’s end: managing coastal vulnerability
under climate change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37.
Nelson, K.S., et al., 2015. A method for creating high resolution maps of social vulnerability in the context of environmental hazards. Appl. Geogr. 63, 89–100.
Nordstrom, K.F., Lotstein, E.L., 1989. Perspectives on resource use of dynamic coastal
dunes. Geogr. Rev. 1–12.
Nordstrom, K.F., 1994. Beaches and dunes of human-altered coasts. Progr. Phys. Geogr.
18 (4), 497–516.
O'Brien, P.W., Mileti, D.S., 1992. Citizen participation in emergency response following
the Loma Prieta earthquake. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 10 (1), 71–89.
O'Brien, K., et al., 2004. What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in
climate change research. CICERO Working Paper.
O'Brien, G., et al., 2006. Climate change and disaster management. Disasters 30 (1),
64–80.
o’Brien, K., et al., 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and
globalization in India. Glob. Environ. Change 14 (4), 303–313.
Paquin, D., et al., 2016. A multiple timescales approach to assess urgency in adaptation to
climate change with an application to the tourism industry. Environ. Sci. Policy 63,
143–150.
Peacock, W.G., et al., 1997. Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of
Disasters. Psychology Press.
Peacock, W., et al., 2000. Hurricane Andrew and the Reshaping of Miami: Ethnicity,
Gender, and the Socio-Political Ecology of Disasters. Florida International University.
International Hurricane Center, Miami, FL.
Peacock, W.G., Kunreuther, H., Hooke, W.H., Cutter, S.L., Chang, S.E., Berke, P.R., 2008.
Toward a Resiliency and Vulnerability Observatory Network: RAVON. HRRC reports:
08-02R. cited from. archone.tamu.edu/hrrc/publications/researchreports/RAVON.
Pelling, M., Uitto, J.I., 2001. Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability
and global change. Glob. Environ. Change Part B: Environ. Hazards 3 (2), 49–62.
Petrosillo, I., et al., 2010. Multi-scale vulnerability of natural capital in a panarchy of
social-ecological landscapes. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 359–367.
Piegorsch, W.W., et al., 2007. Benchmark analysis for quantifying urban vulnerability to
terrorist incidents. Risk Anal. 27 (6), 1411–1425.
Pielke Jr., R.A., et al., 2008. Normalized hurricane damage in the United States:
1900–2005. Nat. Hazards Rev. 9 (1), 29–42.
Pilkey, O.H., Wright III, H.L., 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. J. Coast. Res. 41–64.
Platt, R.H., 1991. Lifelines: an emergency management priority for the United States in
the 1990. Disasters 15 (2), 172–176.
Pope, J., 1997. Responding to coastal erosion and flooding damages. J. Coast. Res.
704–710.
Posthuma, L., et al., 2001. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. CRC Press.
Preston, B.L., et al., 2011. Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of
approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustain. Sci. 6 (2), 177–202.
Pulido, L., 2000. Rethinking environmental racism: white privilege and urban development in Southern California. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90 (1), 12–40.
Raaijmakers, R., et al., 2008. Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an
exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat. Hazards 46 (3), 307–322.
Race, M.S., Christie, D.R., 1982. Coastal zone development: mitigation, marsh creation,
and decision-making. Environ. Manage. 6 (4), 317–328.
Ricketts, T.H., et al., 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there
general patterns? Ecol. Lett. 11 (5), 499–515.
Rosenzweig, C., Tubiello, F.N., 2006. Developing climate change impacts and adaptation
metrics for agriculture. Global Forum on Sustainable Development on the Economic
Benefits of Climate Change Policies.
Rulleau, B., Rey-Valette, H., 2017. Forward planning to maintain the attractiveness of
coastal areas: choosing between seawalls and managed retreat. Environ. Sci. Policy
72, 12–19.
Rygel, L., et al., 2006. A method for constructing a social vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Change 11 (3), 741–764.
Sahin, O., Mohamed, S., 2014. Coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: a spatial–temporal
assessment framework. Nat. Hazards 70 (1), 395–414.
Sarewitz, D., et al., 2003. Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and
policy perspective. Risk Anal. 23 (4), 805–810.
Schliephack, J., Dickinson, J.E., 2017. Tourists’ representations of coastal managed realignment as a climate change adaptation strategy. Tour. Manage. 59, 182–192.
Science, H.J.H. I.C.f. and t. Environment, 2000. The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards:
Implications for Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Island Press.
Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford
University Press.
Senapati, S., Gupta, V., 2017. Socio-economic vulnerability due to climate change: deriving indicators for fishing communities in Mumbai. Mar. Policy 76, 90–97.
29