I am researching the contrasting approaches taken by two global port cities - Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and the Hampton Roads region in VIrginia - to address the common threat of sea-level rise. Rotterdam and other Dutch coastal cities have centuries of water management experience and, since the North Sea storm of 1953, have aggressively sought to weather-proof themselves. The Netherlands has empowered Dutch cities to reduce their vulnerability and increase their resilience. The Hampton Roads area (Chesapeake Bay) faces a similar threat of extreme weather storm surges and flooding. In contrast to the Netherlands, the Virginian coastal cities have largely ignored this threat and the state is reluctant to delegate authority and provide resources. I am particularly interested in understanding the political institutions that influence these behaviors.
I think people and cities may not aware of the severe consequences of projected sea level rise since commercial buildings, industrial facilities, airports, ports, hospitals, schools, and other economic and social infrastructure which are close to the coast will be at risk due to sea-level rise. For example, in Australia, between 157,000 and 247,600 existing residential buildings are at risk of inundation with a sea-level rise of 1.1 metres. Sea-level rise may raise coastal water tables potentially impacting water supply infrastructure, such as septic tanks, sewer systems, basements, causing instability of swimming pools, tanks and some other subsurface structures. Sea level rise could also displace many shore-based populations and the real risk of the forced displacement is in the range 72- 187 million by 2100. In addition, saline intrusion caused by rising sea-level (an invasion of seawater into freshwater and brackish areas) would cause the most significant impact on coastal groundwater resources in particular shallow sandy aquifers along low-lying coasts. Therefore awareness and education would be vital so that communities are fully aware of the future impacts from sea level rise in their local areas.
Hello! I live in the city of Hamburg, Germany. Here a new district, the so-called Hafen City, was recently built in front of the sea wall. All buildings are supposed to be adapted to periodic flooding by storm surges. It remains to be seen whether this will work out on the long run. Anyway, I thought this might be interestimg for you as an example:
http://www.hafencity.com/en/concepts/flood-secure-bases-instead-of-dikes-safe-from-high-water-in-hafencity.html
When it comes to comparing European and American cities I think there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. This is, however, more a personal opinion than something I could proof. Apart from the long experience European and especially Dutch cities have with floodings, it seems to be a more general approach of building structures that will persist in Europe. Every time I see pictures on the news after a hurricane I wonder why people still build their houses and infrastructure in that way in the US. Additionally, I think that climate change is a much more accepted idea here in Europe than in the US.
Hi Claudia,
First I should state that I agree with Stefanies opnion. The comparison between European and American cities along their continents sea shores can differ quite a lot.
The big flood in 1953 in The Netherlands was a major catastrophy for the country, in which over 2000 people drowned during a time lapse of 2 to 3 days. That's a mishap comparable to what we have seen in New Orleans during the Bush administration. For the Dutch this was the kick-off for the Delta plan, aimed at protecting the entire coastline of the Netherlands and evidently cities in the provinces of Zeeland Zuid- en Noord Holland, Friesland and Groningen. Till now that policy has been very succesfull and brought The Netherlands for sure,.. prosperity. Though flooding in the Netherlands can come from inland as well as we saw a few years ago when a major surge of the Rhine due to heavy rains on the continent took place. This led to a Rhine level just a few cm from the top of the dikes at certain sites and ended as a just not major inundation (inland!).
I still keep thinking and taking the example of New Orleans for the US. New Orleans did in the beginning of the flood not even attract the attention of Mr. Bush, president of the US at that time. A visit to New Orleans eventually took place (after some time), also after the National Guard had to intervene because luting was taking place in buildings left to the sea. There was not much honour to grasp for Mr. Bush in New Orleans, Years and years of investments ware lacking to protect the city against flooding. Dikes were (or still are) too low and in very bad shape (leaky). In one word in a policy of messy and non-transparent decision making. I guess not many voters for the president live (or have lived) in New Orleans. Hence, why investment in public infrastructure in New orleans? Even when these are intened to protect the city from flooding. The mayor of New Orleans (I am not sure of that) was not heard in Washington, or else he did not consider flooding as a major topic himself. We should ask the man, what really was the cause, at the decision making level, for this flood to be able to take place. Why were there no pro-active measures taken. Ignorance? Political calculations? Was the mayor heard earlier on in Washington that major investments were needed to protect his city? Or was he neglected. An open question for me. But damned important for the citizens of New Orleans.
As it happens, in history, a lot of times officials only taken action when a few thousand people die in a flood, an explosion of a shaky chemical plant, or 25 dead in one blow (firefighters working on another accident!) on a highway in France, due to speeding of incoming drivers. The French have now become decent drivers, and controls are harsh now in France. But it was only after that major crash, that the French Republican president Chirac took action.. Before that, nothing happened to improve safey on the French highways. It is so unfortunate that many governments only start moving money around when a major catastrophy due to lack of public investments takes place. Public interest and safety are quite often subordinate to cynical political gameplaying or private interests.
This makes me believe, that politicians and decision makers only take action (as a rule of thumb) when something goes really wrong and when people die in the process. This is not colateral damage! It is downright direct lateral damage, and this in different sectors in our societies, health care (the AIDS scandal in France), civil protection against flooding (all coastal cities globally), fires in dry forests ignited by Italian, Greek and Spanish maffia and mobs (speculation on building land) along Mediterranean coastlines, lack of drinking water or power supply (No investment) in remote areas of many African countries and even in Delhi India, you name it.
Shortsighted politicicians are the major cause. Polticians having common good for ALL citizens in mind, have another mindset, and are to my opnion the only ones trying to anticipate on what might be coming, not, to what IS coming, but to what MIGHT be coming. Hence risc assessment and reduction for every citizen of the country including immigrants, or minorities. This requires well organized local administrations which estimate the different riscs for the population of a city or a region, supervised and supported by specialists at country level or supernational level. Rijkswaterstaat in The Netherlands is a good example. They take the lead in the planning of the defences against flooding. Corruption also plays a major role, which is not to be underestimated (landslides in Southern Italy at illegally built sites. Hundreds have died in the mudlsides. Berlusconi has always kept quiete about this.
I know that I have just amde some loose canon shots, but according to me politicians carry a heavy responsility, which they do not always take. Many a time, they have an agenda of elections in their mind and then they cynically caclulate how many voters they will lose or win, by doing nothing for a certain city or region. If the voting loss number is low, one can expect the worst.
And that is something which Europe as well as the US have in common, but in different modes of operation. In Europe these political calculations are pretty fast criticised by Trade Unions, Farmer Organisations, NGO's, Environmental Action groups, Social movements and so on. There are a lot of midfield players in Europe. They still are a significant force in the political decision making arena. I am afraid that I have no idea how strong this type of organisations is in the US. Anyway, in Europe these orgnaisations open their mouths quite fast if decisions are taken against their interests and especially,.. if decisions are not taken to guarantee a safe environment in all its aspects.
That's basic democracy from the 'Old Continent'. Not the mumbo jumbo from some cynical politicians.
Cheers,
Frank
Great insights from the above contributors. I used to live in Virginia (in fact, not too far from ODU). Action has to come from will, and will has to be supported by cognitive understanding. Frank's comparison of the big floods in Netherlands and New Orleans is indeed an illuminating example of the difference between two nations.
Shortly after the New Orleans big flood we had a televengelist proclaiming that it was "divine punishment". If people believe in divine punishment, why would they use sound scientific and engineering knowledge to prevent future floods?
Large-scale engineering projects cost money, and money may have different meanings for different people. The rich can easily relocate or recover using their own resources, but the poor cannot. When the poor are on a sinking skiff and the rich are on their nice yacht, will the rich be compelled to pay to help the poor?
Disasters such as big floods are not frequent events, and they happen at time scales typically longer than the election cycle. When politicians focus on how to win votes in the next few years, will they pay attention to what may happen in the next few decades?
And all of the previous contributors had it right: It comes down to education. But for a government that spent ~2% on education vs. ~20% on defense (2011 figures), we know what that means to our collective attitude towards climate change.
Dear Kim,
All though much information is available (J articles etc) but communities are not aware of the severe consequences of climate change and global warming, in this case sea level rise impacts on aquifers (drinking water supplies) in particular in island nations. One of the adaptation measures suggested is to harvest rainwater. Further poor countries cannot afford to build expensive engineering structure (sea walls) but restoration of coastal habitats with mangroves is an effective adaptation measure/defence against storm-surges, saline intrusion, coastal erosion and sea level rise.
Hi, You shoul take a look at : Effectiveness of land management measures to reduce coastal georisks, eastern Québec, Canada, by S. Drejza (on researchgate).
Article Effectiveness of land management measures to reduce coastal ...
Our biggest concern in Hong Kong is protecting the greater than 10% of low-lying land created by coastal land reclamation from typhoon-induced storm surges. Historically we have experienced two disastrous storm surges with death tolls of an estimated15,000 (over 3% total population) and 11,000 (1% total population) in 1906 and 1937 respectively. However, without increasing land supply politicians think there cannot be any economic growth for the city. The tide gauge record available since 1954 is too short to be useful for indicating future sea-level change.
Yes we have two main types -
(1) Vertical seawalls
(2) Sloping seawalls protected by rip rap or by dolosses in the East Dam of the High Island Reservoir.
In order to protect boat dwellers we also have typhoon shelters.
Apart from path dependency, adaptation requires making political choices.
See: The concept of resilience from a normative perspective: examples from Dutch adaptation strategies.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art45/
Dear Haider and Maude, thank you for the links. Maude - I am requesting the full text of the article because the authors address the social component. I am interested in learning more about this and the political will issue.
Dear Frank,
Good discussion on the NL. I don't know if an abrupt catastrophic weather event is a sufficient condition that causes a city/country to shift from ignoring to adapting to SLR. Is there something in the history of the Dutch political institutions that make it easier for them to implement adaptation policies that hinders the US from doing so. Holding constant that each has experienced a catastrophic storm.
Some of my work suggests that status quo biases, loss aversion, and framing effects (see Tverksy and Kahneman) would go some way towards explaining the differences. Humans tend to over-value losses relative to potential gains, so even if the rational cost-benefits of proactive adaptation to sea level rise are clear they are insufficient in and of themselves to motivate action. The Dutch have had numerous catastrophic events of riparian and storm flooding over the last few centuries that has more or less permanently altered their collective mentality when it comes to preparing for future events. The experience in NYC before and after Sandy are instructive, since New York had an excellent climate adaptation strategy prior to the storm, but did little to act upon it until after the event. If you would like some connections to colleagues in Rotterdam who work with this, please feel free to contact me. Also, I would recommend that you read this article by Rosenzweig et al. on NYC's adaptation strategy ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-010-0002-8)
Hi Claudia,
Hi Claudia,
An important difference between the NL and the US is that a quote important part of the NL is already below Sea level and hence flooding is not taken lightly nu the Dutch (government). Hence the perception of flooding is very different in the NL as opposed to the US. In the US, New Orléans is Just a City having the bad Luck to residing in a flood danger zone. A large amount of US citids are located in safe zones with recard to flooding. Hence a different perception of flooding risc. I figger that the difference in magnitude of the danger zones changes perception of the riscs involved drastically. Cheers. Frank
Guillermo,
You make a good point. What surprised me is that the Hampton Roads area (coastal Virginia) has had flooding problems for hundreds of years, dating back to the first settlements. In contrast to the Dutch, however, they have continued to further develop barrier islands and the waterfront. Residents experience increasing levels of damage as the surges increase and the land subsides.
I wonder why more cities don't learn from the experience of other coastal cities and reduce their vulnerability by increasing their resilience?
The problem in Hampton Roads is similar to that in Ghana. Sea level rise is now a major issue. Although the authorities are addressing the problem by providing some mitigation measures along portions of the shoreline, the approach is more adhoc, expensive and unsustainable. Adopting best practice is good but developing more localized solutions should be the way forward.
Just wondering what impact of Virginia being a Dillon Rule State has on the issue for the Hampton Roads area... Municipalities only have the powers that they are expressly granted to them by the state legislature which places some real limitations upon the local government's power and authority - and the Regional efforts are all a matter of cooperation between the involved municipalities since Hampton Roads as a region has no real power or authority.
Good point Joanne. I looked into this last year and, in fact, the Dillon Rule has been quite influential in the development of competitive (rather than cooperative) political relationships between HR local governments vying for resources and authority from Richmond The 2013 VIMS Report recommended Richmond delegate authority to municipalities to enable effective regional adaptation to SLR. Report is at http://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/flooding_study.php The feeling I've gotten from attending SLR Founders Meetings this past year is that mayors have more power (although not much money) than they thought and the Dillon Rule is not the legal obstacle initially envisioned. However, there is an institutionalized pattern of uncooperative political behavior at the local level. And change takes time and is difficult. There are also strong special interests (fossil fuel industry and utilities) that want to maintain the status quo. Cooperative municipalities threaten that status quo. We'll see how hard these old habits are to break.
I think the problem in Hampton Roads area or any part of the USA is lack of education. Geography as a subject is not taught at schools generally. Globes are not available in stores - unable to find one to give a present to my grandkids, eventually had to bring one down from Canada! They are surrounded by statues & posters of the Disney characters, but nothing from the real world! How people like that can take the threat of the ocean rise seriously?
After the people get educated, then the elected officials will take matters seriously and get prepared like the Dutch. There is no other way, unless you give the contract to the Dutch to prepare the defences for you.
Michael, agree about the low priority of geographical awareness in US schools these days. The Dutch hydro-engineers have come in to Hampton Roads, and New Orleans, and New York/New Jersey as consultants but the engineered solutions are expensive and the social solutions aren't fully understood. Getting coastal Americans to pay for the expensive defenses against an encroaching sea is a hard political sell. Goes back to education.
For the same set of reasons that people continue to live under the shadow of a live volcano. A few conjectures come to mind:
1. For some, topographical constraints mean that those regions are the most productive and livable- they have no choice- adapt.
2. There is a symbiotic relationship with the ever-present danger (running a lodge, fishing etc.)- adapt
3. Sentimental reasons-"we have always lived this way, this is our way of life"- ignore.
4. "Boiling frog syndrome"- the incremental change fallacy, without thinking about aspects such as punctuated equilibrium and black swan events- a not so clear but ever present danger.
The rate of sea level rise is positive but rather small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
So if you think about the lifetime of urban capital (let's say, approximately 80 years, not centuries), sea level rise is not relevant. However, there are exceptions. There are places where land is sinking rapidly. These places need to get hip relatively soon. I am not personally familiar with the political environment in these places, however I would guess that they need to experience a crisis prior to making decisions about moving inland or whatever. I once lived in a city which experienced three 100 year floods in four years. Of course, the experts who defined the 100 year flood were wrong. My guess is that people are developing expectations that will prove to be wrong. Finally, there are coastal areas in the world which are so desperately poor that they cannot contemplate taking any action at all.
Woow, good question.
Well, not all the cities ignore sea level rise or refuse to adaptate to it.
Some cities (NYC, Venice) have faced this topic, since there is an obvious risk. High probability of sea level rise, flat areas, high population and heritage... it is like a perfect storm from risk analysis point of view.
I can tell you that in my country, Spain, most of the cities do not care about that. The State (national, regional, municipalety levels) do not care at all. Why? well, our politicians think in short-term: no more than 4 years, which is the period of our elections (err... well, 5 with Prime Minister Rajoy, but that is another topic). So events taking place after 2020 will not be interesting for politicians in 2016. And that is all. The only problem is winning elections. It is a huge problem for climate change.
Moreover, since the economical crisis started in 2007, most of the money spent in research about this topic and environments has just gone. So it is difficult to make accurate maps to prevent anything. We need funds. Even for the population it is not "so important". People (in Spain, I repeat) care about unemployment. They do not make any pressure about environmental issues.
Some cities are not adapting to climate change because these cities are not directly linking climate change to economic activities.
Just to shed some light into the debate, I just found this interesting webiste (based on model's projection) which simulate the impact of sea level rise across the world.
flood.firetree.net
Obviously the impact is quite variable and two different cities at the same altitude with respect to sea level will experience different impacts. In other words, the risk varies quite a lot from one coastal city to another.
Sea level rises (SLR) can considerably influence human populations in coastal and island regions but some cities are more at risk than others (Amsterdam or Miami versus cities of US on the Pacific side for example) . Hotspots of SLR rates can divert 3-4 times the average so some cities needs to adapt more urgently than others.
Excellent point Robichaud. And thank you for the website. SLR is certainly a relative phenomenon that poses a hazard to some cities a lot more than others. Land subsidence, urban density, built infrastructure and other local factors exacerbate SLR as do distant factors such as glacial retreat, continent tipping, and thermal expansion of ocean water. I am primarily focusing on the political and economic factors that influence adaptation to SLR between cities that face an equal hazard. I think Kwasi's point about not linking CC to economic costs is also a good one. I have been watching communities clean up after storm-caused flood. And I've been thinking about how expensive disaster recovery is compared to the relatively cheaper price tag on prevention and protection. At what point does the cost-benefit analysis override the bias to maintain the status quo?
Thanks to both of you for your participation in this conversation. I find it most helpful.
Commercial buildings, industrial facilities, airports, ports, hospitals, schools, and other economic and social infrastructure which are close to the coast will be at risk due to sea-level rise; see the link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266794121_Sea-level_rise_and_its_impact_on_wetlands_water_agriculture_fisheries_aquaculture_public_health_displacement_infrastructure_and_adaptation
Technical Report Sea-level rise and its impact on wetlands, water, agricultur...
Howdy Claudia,
Concerning flood risk I wrote a recent paper which might give you more insight in the problem area. For example estuaria amplify sea level rise by a factor of 2 to 5 times depending on their shape, depth, rivers flowing in and main wind directions at the mouth of an estuarium.
Don't forget Belgium, which is protecting the second largest port of Europe Antwerp (after Rotterdam) against flooding and which has know floodings since the first dikes were built by monks in the 14th century. Before that time the Polders were immense mud flats where some fishermen tribes lived, never conquered by the Romans by the way. Roman centurions when they ventured in these areas, drowned in the vast swamps and tidal flood areas. 6 hours at low tide was all they got to conquer these immense mudflats inhabited by fishermenfolks. After these 6 hours the high tide comes in (6 meters amplitude) and the battle was finished. Hence the low countries have know flooding since several millenia, and its population first adapted to it and then changed the tidal mudflats into polders protected dikes. Later on in the 20th century The Netherlands as ell as Belgium invested billions in their Delta and Alfa sea protection plans, which changed the face and flooding risks of the delta of Scheldt, Maas and Rhine rivers forever.
So read about flooding in:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307876594_The_Solomon_Isles_disappear_in_the_Pacific_Scientific_evidence_for_Global_and_Local_Sea-level_rise
Cheers,
Frank
Article The Solomon Isles disappear in the Pacific. Scientific evide...
Because they ingore the sea rise level as a consequence of glacier reatreat, deglaciation of the Himalayas, the andes, rocky mountains and most importantly, the ice melt in the artic antartic and greenland.
I addition to sea rise, storms tornados and ciclones are now and will be more strong and more frequent in the future due to global warming. So the rich living in the paradiciacal beaches, namely in the south pacific and the caribean willbe in tears. Well rich countries are the more emiters of greenhouse effect wich is the major cause of climate change and global warming
Hello, Claudia.
You are right to look into the responsible political institutions. They are responsible for guaranteeing the safety of people and infrastructure in flood prone areas. The increasing threat due to climate change will not only lead to accelerating SLR but may also increase the set-up of stormsurges and heigt and length of accompanying waves. The response to these threat(s) is in those countries more structured in which coastal protection has traditionally been structured on a high administratition level guided by politics and critically accompanied by public. The best example I know are the self-ruling water communities in the Netherlands and at the German North Sea coast basing on medivial law-setting of Frisian communities who started with written rules for coastal protection in the 14th century. Nowadays a high standard has been achieved including technical basics and rules for funding of coastal protection measures. The state of the art in the countries along the North Sea has very recenty been compared and documented including the adaptation strategies for responding to climate change impacts: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307586634_Socio-economic_Impacts-Coastal_Protection
Chapter Socio-economic Impacts—Coastal Protection
20 percent of world population live between sea level and 20 meters above the sea level. There is not people living there, but domestic and wild animal as well as there are agricultural activities and expensive holyday resorts where most retired northern hemisphere eldrly people lives permanently. All of then are vulnerable and may shrink in the medium term future.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change