Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:53:35.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Lena Reimann*
Affiliation:
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Athanasios T. Vafeidis
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
Lars E. Honsel
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Lena Reimann, Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coastal areas are subject to hazards that can result in severe impacts due to the high concentration of people and assets in exposed locations. While climate-induced sea-level rise will exacerbate these hazards in the course of the 21st century, future dynamics in socioeconomic development will play an important role in driving impacts – as well as adaptation responses – in particular in countries with rapid population growth in low-lying coastal areas. Here, we synthesize the current state of knowledge related to current and future population development in coastal locations and the underlying trends in socioeconomic development affecting coastal impacts at continental to global scales. Currently, 2.15 billion people live in the near-coastal zone and 898 million in the low-elevation coastal zone globally. These numbers could increase to 2.9 billion and 1.2 billion, respectively, depending on the socioeconomic scenario (i.e., Shared Socioeconomic Pathway [SSP]) considered. Nevertheless, although these numbers indicate a rapid increase in exposure of population and assets to coastal hazards, they bear limited information about the actual impacts as they do not include information on the vulnerability of coastal population. Based on these insights, we stress the need to account for dynamics in socioeconomic development in coastal risk assessments, including exposure as well as vulnerability, and additionally exploring potential feedbacks due to adaptation responses and migration decisions. Last, we propose action points for future work that can inform long-term coastal planning for managing coastal risks.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

Coastal risks will increase in the course of the 21st century due to climate change, the future impacts of which will largely be driven by socioeconomic developments in coastal locations. Coastal zones have been attractive for human settlement for centuries, resulting in higher population growth in coastal compared to inland locations. Globally, these trends are expected to continue in the future, resulting in an increase in coastal exposure, the extent of which depends on changes in socioeconomic conditions that drive population growth and coastal migration processes. These processes have thus far not been accounted for in continental- to global-scale coastal risk assessments in a systematic manner. Beyond illustrating the need to mainstream the use of socioeconomic scenarios to explore future coastal exposure, this review highlights the importance to additionally account for aspects of social vulnerability in assessing coastal risks, including socioeconomic characteristics of exposed populations (e.g., age, education levels, and ethnicity), adaptation responses, and migration decisions. Furthermore, more systematic reporting of data and methods used in such assessments is necessary to enable comparison of the outcomes of various continental- to global-scale studies. By establishing hotspots of exposure and vulnerability, the results of such assessments can inform coastal policies and risk management strategies that are sustainable under a wide range of coastal futures.

Introduction

Coastal areas are susceptible to various natural and climatic hazards such as coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion into soils and coastal aquifers, and coastal flooding due to extreme sea levels (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Nicholls, Woodroffe, Hanson, Hinkel, Kebede, Neumann, Vafeidis and Finkl2013; Oppenheimer et al., Reference Oppenheimer, Glavovic, Hinkel, van de Wal, Magnan, Abd-Elgawad, Cai, Cifuentes-Jara, DeConto, Ghosh, Hay, Isla, Marzeion, Meyssignac, Sebesvari, Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Nicolai, Okem, Petzold, Rama and Weyer2022). In particular, in river mouth locations, these coastal hazards can be compounded by fluvial (i.e., river) flooding due to increased river discharge during conditions of heavy precipitation or increased snow melt upstream (Zscheischler et al., Reference Zscheischler, Martius, Westra, Bevacqua, Raymond, Horton, van den Hurk, AghaKouchak, Jézéquel, Mahecha, Maraun, Ramos, Ridder, Thiery and Vignotto2020). Furthermore, coastal areas are increasingly prone to pluvial (i.e., rain) flooding as a consequence of soil sealing and altered hydrology associated with urbanization (Dodman et al., Reference Dodman, Hayward, Pelling, Castan Broto, Chow, Chu, Dawson, Khirfan, McPhearson, Prakash, Zheng, Ziervogel, Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Craig, Langsdorf, Löschke, Möller, Okem and Rama2022). These hazards are expected to aggravate in the course of the 21st century and well beyond as climate change gradually leads to changes in precipitation patterns and river discharge regimes, as well as to rises in sea levels, thus resulting in an increase in the frequency and intensity of coastal flooding and other coastal hazards (IPCC, Reference Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Pirani, Connors, Péan, Berger, Caud, Chen, Goldfarb, Gomis, Huang, Leitzell, Lonnoy, Matthews, Maycock, Waterfield, Yelekci, Yu and Zhou2021; Oppenheimer et al., Reference Oppenheimer, Glavovic, Hinkel, van de Wal, Magnan, Abd-Elgawad, Cai, Cifuentes-Jara, DeConto, Ghosh, Hay, Isla, Marzeion, Meyssignac, Sebesvari, Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Nicolai, Okem, Petzold, Rama and Weyer2022).

The impacts of these hazards can be significant due to the high concentration of population and assets in exposed areas as coastal regions have historically been attractive locations for human settlement, for example, for trading, fisheries, and tourism (Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015; Kummu et al., Reference Kummu, de Moel, Salvucci, Viviroli, Ward and Varis2016). Future socioeconomic development will determine the severity of coastal impacts in places where high increases in population and urbanization levels are expected, thereby leading to an increase in coastal assets (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016; Hoornweg and Pope, Reference Hoornweg and Pope2017). Impacts are largely driven by the socioeconomic trajectory taken (Rohat, Reference Rohat2018; Rohat et al., Reference Rohat, Flacke, Dosio, Pedde, Dao and van Maarseveen2019): more equitable development and high economic growth will likely result in an increase in coastal assets (hence exposure) globally, while high inequalities and dampened economic growth may result in high population growth, particularly in poorer countries, with large shares of vulnerable populations affected during extreme events, particularly due to a lack of adaptive capacity (Hinkel et al., Reference Hinkel, Lincke, Vafeidis, Perrette, Nicholls, Tol, Marzeion, Fettweis, Ionescu and Levermann2014; Reference Hinkel, Aerts, Brown, Jiménez, Lincke, Nicholls, Scussolini, Sanchez-Arcilla, Vafeidis and Addo2018). Additionally, human-induced land subsidence related to groundwater extraction and exploitation of oil or gas reservoirs (Shirzaei et al., Reference Shirzaei, Freymueller, Törnqvist, Galloway, Dura and Minderhoud2021) as well as the weight of buildings (Nicholls et al., Reference Nicholls, Marinova, Lowe, Brown, Vellinga, Gusmao, Hinkel and Tol2011) further exacerbates coastal risks, particularly in delta regions (Nicholls et al., Reference Nicholls, Lincke, Hinkel, Brown, Vafeidis, Meyssignac, Hanson, Merkens and Fang2021; Magnan et al., Reference Magnan, Garschagen, Gattuso, Hay, Hilmi, Holland, Isla, Kofinas, Losada, Petzold, Ratter, Schuur, Tabe, van de Wal, Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Nicolai, Okem, Petzold, Rama and Weyer2022). The uncertainties in future impacts related to future changes in socioeconomic conditions in the coastal zone can be explored with the help of socioeconomic scenarios such as the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), which are the current standard socioeconomic scenarios used in climate change research (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Carter, Ebi, Harrison, Kemp-Benedict, Kok, Kriegler, Preston, Riahi, Sillmann, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Carlisle, Conde, Fuglestvedt, Green, Hasegawa, Leininger, Monteith and Pichs-Madruga2020; Box 1).

Box 1. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs).

The SSPs are one component of the current scenario framework in climate change research, which consists of climate scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, RCPs), socioeconomic scenarios (SSPs), and climate policy scenarios (Shared Policy Assumptions, SPAs) (van Vuuren et al., Reference van Vuuren, Kriegler, O’Neill, Ebi, Riahi, Carter, Edmonds, Hallegatte, Kram, Mathur and Winkler2014; O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Carter, Ebi, Harrison, Kemp-Benedict, Kok, Kriegler, Preston, Riahi, Sillmann, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Carlisle, Conde, Fuglestvedt, Green, Hasegawa, Leininger, Monteith and Pichs-Madruga2020). Five SSPs describe plausible alternative trends in global-scale societal development in the course of the 21st century based on their socioeconomic challenges for mitigation and adaptation (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Riahi, Ebi, Hallegatte, Carter, Mathur and van Vuuren2014; Figure 1). Each SSP has an underlying narrative that qualitatively describes a broad range of socioeconomic developments in the form of a story (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017). In SSP1, challenges are low as society develops sustainably; in SSP2, historic patterns in socioeconomic development continue, leading to moderate challenges; SSP3 has high challenges due to resurgent nationalism and limited global cooperation; SSP4 has high adaptation challenges as inequalities are high within and across countries; and SSP5 is characterized by rapid economic growth based on fossil fuels, which lead to high challenges for mitigation. Several key variables of socioeconomic development have been quantified with the help of the assumptions described in each SSP narrative, resulting in national-level projections of population, age, education (KC and Lutz, Reference KC and Lutz2017), urbanization (Jiang and O’Neill, Reference Jiang and O’Neill2017), and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Crespo Cuaresma, Reference Crespo Cuaresma2017; Dellink et al., Reference Dellink, Chateau, Lanzi and Magné2017) until 2100. These projections as well as their underlying qualitative assumptions provide boundary conditions for downscaling exercises that account for trends such as internal migration and urban development patterns, which influence the spatial distribution of the population.

Figure 1. The five SSPs with their challenges for mitigation and adaptation (adapted from O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017).

Although the importance of socioeconomic development in driving coastal impacts is well established, future changes in impacts are often assessed by combining future hazard projections with current population numbers, particularly at continental to global scales (e.g., Muis et al., Reference Muis, Verlaan, Nicholls, Brown, Hinkel, Lincke, Vafeidis, Scussolini, Winsemius and Ward2017; Kulp and Strauss, Reference Kulp and Strauss2019); or by accounting for the dynamics of socioeconomic development, but without considering differences in attractiveness between inland and coastal locations (e.g., Hinkel et al., Reference Hinkel, Lincke, Vafeidis, Perrette, Nicholls, Tol, Marzeion, Fettweis, Ionescu and Levermann2014; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Nicholls, Lowe and Hinkel2016; Nicholls et al., Reference Nicholls, Brown, Goodwin, Wahl, Lowe, Solan, Godbold, Haigh, Lincke, Hinkel, Wolff and Merkens2018; Vafeidis et al., Reference Vafeidis, Schuerch, Wolff, Spencer, Merkens, Hinkel, Lincke, Brown and Nicholls2019). Few studies, however, do account for internal migration processes such as rural–urban and inland–coastal migration (e.g., Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015; Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Lincke, Hinkel, Brown and Vafeidis2018) or dynamics in the development of urban settlements (e.g., Tiggeloven et al., Reference Tiggeloven, Moel, Winsemius, Eilander, Erkens, Gebremedhin, Diaz Loaiza, Kuzma, Luo, Iceland, Bouwman, van Huijstee, Ligtvoet and Ward2020; Vousdoukas et al., Reference Vousdoukas, Mentaschi, Hinkel, Ward, Mongelli, Ciscar and Feyen2020) in driving coastal impacts. Despite these advancements, recent work has pointed out the persisting bias in coastal impact assessments toward focusing on the hazard rather than on changes in socioeconomic conditions, thereby stressing the need to account for dynamics in socioeconomic development in a more systematic manner (Hinkel et al., Reference Hinkel, Feyen, Hemer, Le Cozannet, Lincke, Marcos, Mentaschi, Merkens, de Moel, Muis, Nicholls, Vafeidis, van de Wal, Vousdoukas, Wahl, Ward and Wolff2021; Oppenheimer et al., Reference Oppenheimer, Glavovic, Hinkel, van de Wal, Magnan, Abd-Elgawad, Cai, Cifuentes-Jara, DeConto, Ghosh, Hay, Isla, Marzeion, Meyssignac, Sebesvari, Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Nicolai, Okem, Petzold, Rama and Weyer2022; Rasmussen et al., Reference Rasmussen, Kulp, Kopp, Oppenheimer and Strauss2022).

This review article aims to take a first step toward addressing this need by synthesizing the literature related to current and future population development in coastal locations at continental to global scales. Building on the methods used in previous studies (see section “Coastal population analysis”), we present current (see section “Observed population development in coastal locations”) and future (see section “Projections of future coastal population development”) spatial population distributions by distance from the coast and by elevation. To illustrate the uncertainty related to future coastal development and to provide a first estimate of how socioeconomic development may drive future coastal impacts, we present differences in future coastal population for each SSP. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of incorporating aspects of social vulnerability to characterize socioeconomic processes in a comprehensive manner in section “Beyond exposure – Consider aspects of vulnerability.” Last, we propose a number of action points for future research in section “Action points for future work,” addressing uncertainties that have hampered the inclusion of socioeconomic development in continental- to global-scale coastal impact assessments in previous work.

Coastal population analysis

We enhanced the coastal population numbers reported in the literature with results from additional analysis that we conducted using recently published datasets. To enable comparison with the numbers presented in the literature (mainly Small and Nicholls, Reference Small and Nicholls2003; Kummu et al., Reference Kummu, de Moel, Salvucci, Viviroli, Ward and Varis2016), we analyzed both the current and future population distributions by distance from the coast (up to 100 km) as well as by elevation (up to 100 m). We used this inclusive definition of the coast as urban settlements, in particular megacities, can extend several tens of kilometers inland (see MacManus et al., Reference MacManus, Balk, Engin, McGranahan and Inman2021 for an example) and constitute an important migration factor (Hugo, Reference Hugo2011; Seto, Reference Seto2011). Furthermore, as uncertainty in future coastal population development is high due to the multitude of factors that drive socioeconomic development in general (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017) and internal migration more specifically (Black et al., Reference Black, Adger, Arnell, Dercon, Geddes and Thomas2011a), using smaller distance increments than the 10 km increments used here would give a false sense of certainty related to such drivers of spatial population patterns.

To assess the current population distribution, we calculated these numbers based on the WorldPop population dataset of 2020 (constrained version), which modeled spatial population by distributing it across settlements as established based on satellite imagery (Bondarenko et al., Reference Bondarenko, Kerr, Sorichetta and Tatem2020). We first merged the data for each country into one raster layer with a spatial resolution of ~100 m (3 arc sec, WGS 84). To calculate the population by elevation (in 10 m increments), we used the Multi-Error-Removed Improved-Terrain Digital Elevation Model (MERIT DEM) (Yamazaki et al., Reference Yamazaki, Ikeshima, Tawatari, Yamaguchi, O’Loughlin, Neal, Sampson, Kanae and Bates2017) and overlaid each elevation increment with the population at the native spatial resolution (i.e., 3 arc sec). To assess population distributions by distance, we calculated the Euclidean distance from the coast based on a water mask derived from MERIT DEM, and then summed up the population by 10 km distance increment. We used the same procedure to analyze the future population (in 2100) based on the spatial population projections of Merkens et al. (Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016) who accounted for inland–coastal as well as rural–urban migration processes per SSP. As these projections were produced at a spatial resolution of 30 arc sec (approximately 1 km at the equator), we conducted the same analysis steps as described above after aggregating all data to this resolution.

Observed population development in coastal locations

In 1990, about 1.2 billion people lived in the near-coastal zone, defined as all land within 100 km from the coast at an elevation of up to 100 m, meaning that 23% of the global population lived in 9% of the global land area (Small and Nicholls, Reference Small and Nicholls2003). By 2010, over 27% of the global population (~1.9 billion) lived in the near-coastal zone (Kummu et al., Reference Kummu, de Moel, Salvucci, Viviroli, Ward and Varis2016), which further increased to 2.15 billion in 2020 (based on WorldPop). Considering the low-elevation coastal zone (LECZ), defined as land with an elevation of up to 10 m in hydrological connection to the sea and often used as a proxy for all land potentially affected by future coastal hazards, over 10% (634 million) of the global population lived in this low-lying coastal zone in 2000, covering 2% of the global land area (McGranahan et al., Reference McGranahan, Balk and Anderson2007; Balk et al., Reference Balk, Montgomery, McGranahan, Kim, Mara, Todd, Buettner, Dorélien and Guzmán2009; MacManus et al., Reference MacManus, Balk, Engin, McGranahan and Inman2021). Almost 75% of the global LECZ population lived in Asia, with less than 10% in all other world regions (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016). In 2015, the LECZ population amounted to 815 million, corresponding to almost 12% of the world population (MacManus et al., Reference MacManus, Balk, Engin, McGranahan and Inman2021), and grew to 898 million in 2020 (based on WorldPop). We must note that the numbers presented here may not be fully consistent due to the use of different population, urban settlement, and elevation datasets employed in each study (Table 1).

Analyzing the number of people by distance from the coast, we find almost 1 billion people living within 10 km of the coastline, with a continuous decrease in the population living further away from the coast (Figure 2a). In total, more than one-third (2.75 billion) of the world’s population lives within 100 km from the coast. We observe similar patterns when assessing the distribution of global population by elevation increment: almost half (3.5 billion) of the global population lives up to 100 m above sea level, with the largest share in the 10-m elevation increment (i.e., the LECZ) (Figure 2b). While these spatial population patterns closely match those reported in previous work (Small and Nicholls, Reference Small and Nicholls2003), the number of people living in each 10-km distance and 10-m elevation increment has increased considerably from 1990 to 2020.

Figure 2. Global population (in billions) in 2020 by (a) distance from the coast and (b) elevation.

In line with these population patterns, coastal locations are more urbanized compared to inland locations, with 34% of the global urban population living in the near-coastal zone in 2010 (Kummu et al., Reference Kummu, de Moel, Salvucci, Viviroli, Ward and Varis2016). The urban population living in the LECZ increased from 360 million in 2000 (McGranahan et al., Reference McGranahan, Balk and Anderson2007) to 487 million in 2015, corresponding to over 14% of the global urban population (MacManus et al., Reference MacManus, Balk, Engin, McGranahan and Inman2021). Similarly, almost 40% of all cities with more than 1 million inhabitants are located in the near-coastal zone (Kummu et al., Reference Kummu, de Moel, Salvucci, Viviroli, Ward and Varis2016) and more than two-thirds of all megacities (over 8 million inhabitants) in the LECZ (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Nicholls, Woodroffe, Hanson, Hinkel, Kebede, Neumann, Vafeidis and Finkl2013). Furthermore, urban land located in the LECZ has been observed to expand at a significantly faster rate than in inland areas (Seto et al., Reference Seto, Fragkias, Güneralp and Reilly2011). The concentration of urban areas in coastal locations also results in a high concentration of infrastructure such as airports (Yesudian and Dawson, Reference Yesudian and Dawson2021), roads and railways (Koks et al., Reference Koks, Rozenberg, Zorn, Tariverdi, Vousdoukas, Fraser, Hall and Hallegatte2019), economic assets (Kummu et al., Reference Kummu, de Moel, Salvucci, Viviroli, Ward and Varis2016), and cultural assets (Marzeion and Levermann, Reference Marzeion and Levermann2014; Reimann et al., Reference Reimann, Vafeidis, Brown, Hinkel and Tol2018b) in locations potentially at risk from coastal hazards.

Projections of future coastal population development

Future coastal population growth is driven by different aspects of socioeconomic development (e.g., demographic changes, economic growth, policies, and institutions); internal migration, including rural–urban and inland–coastal migration; as well as spatial development patterns (i.e., more sprawling versus compact development). The SSPs (Box 1) are a suitable tool for exploring future changes in socioeconomic development based on the five narratives (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017) as well as the national-level population (KC and Lutz, Reference KC and Lutz2017) and urbanization projections (Jiang and O’Neill, Reference Jiang and O’Neill2017).

Merkens et al. (Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016) developed spatially explicit population projections based on the SSPs, accounting for rural–urban as well as inland–coastal migration. Their results project 2.1 billion (SSP1) to 2.9 billion (SSP3) people to live in the near-coastal zone by 2100, which corresponds to a 3.5% decrease (SSP1) to 36% increase (SSP3) compared to 2020. As shown in Figure 3a, the population living within 100 km of the coastline is almost consistently higher under all SSPs in 2100 compared to 2020, except for locations 70–100 km away from the coastline under SSP1. The largest differences, compared to the current distribution of population, are projected under SSP3, where the cumulative population is roughly 1.5 times higher per distance increment. Considering elevation (Figure 3b), we see more people living in locations up to 100 m above sea level in 2100 under SSP2 and SSP3, and fewer people under SSP1 and SSP4 compared to 2020. In SSP5, the population in the 10-m elevation increment (i.e., the LECZ) is slightly higher (2.5%) in 2100 than today, but consistently lower in all other elevation increments, reflecting the widespread assumption that the LECZ will remain attractive for human settlement in the future (Nicholls, Reference Nicholls2004; Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015; Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016; Reimann et al., Reference Reimann, Jones, Nikoletopoulos and Vafeidis2021a).

Figure 3. Global population (in billions) in 2020 versus 2100 by (a) distance from the coast and (b) elevation.

Other global-scale studies project future population in a spatially explicit manner, accounting for inland–coastal migration, but not using the SSPs (Nicholls, Reference Nicholls2004; Nicholls et al., Reference Nicholls, Wong, Burkett, Woodroffe and Hay2008; Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015); or accounting for spatial development patterns only (Jones and O’Neill, Reference Jones and O’Neill2016). Based on the so-called Foresight scenarios that describe four worlds (A–D) of varying future economic growth and political, social, and economic governance (Foresight, 2011), Neumann et al. (Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015) project up to 1.4 billion people to live in the LECZ by 2060. These results stem from distinct population growth rates in coastal versus inland locations, which are based on the assumption that coastal areas are more attractive for human settlement than inland areas, the intensity of which depends on the scenario. Not accounting for coastal migration, but assuming differences in sprawling versus compact spatial development per SSP, Jones and O’Neill (Reference Jones and O’Neill2016) estimate a LECZ population of 493 million (SSP4) to 1.1 billion (SSP3) in 2100. These numbers are lower than those projected by Merkens et al. (Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016) where the global LECZ population ranges from 830 million (SSP4) to 1.2 billion (SSP3) in 2100 due to continued migration toward the coast under all SSPs, the assumptions of which they derived from coastal SSP narratives specifically developed for their study. Two continental (i.e., Mediterranean)-scale studies account for inland–coastal migration (Reimann et al., Reference Reimann, Merkens and Vafeidis2018a, based on Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016) and additionally for spatial development patterns (Reimann et al. Reference Reimann, Jones, Nikoletopoulos and Vafeidis2021a, based on Jones and O’Neill, Reference Jones and O’Neill2016) under the SSPs, based on the coastal SSP narratives extended with socioeconomic development drivers specific to the Mediterranean region. Both studies project Mediterranean LECZ population numbers that are comparable to those produced by their respective global counterparts, but also show marked differences with deviations ranging from −15% to 25% in Mediterranean LECZ population, stemming from the refined scenario assumptions (Reimann, Reference Reimann2021). Considering both inland–coastal migration and urban sprawl, Reimann et al. (Reference Reimann, Jones, Nikoletopoulos and Vafeidis2021a) find that migration toward the coast has a larger effect on the future LECZ population than spatial changes in settlement patterns.

Although future estimates of urban population in the LECZ are not reported in the global-scale literature, coastal population patterns are largely driven by the urbanization assumptions underlying the SSPs. In 2100, more than 90% of the world population is projected to live in urban areas in SSP1, 4, and 5; around 60% in SSP3; and roughly 80% in SSP2 (Jiang and O’Neill, Reference Jiang and O’Neill2017). These urbanization rates combined with the attractiveness of coastal locations for human settlement will likely amplify the currently observed higher urbanization levels in coastal locations (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Lincke, Hinkel, Brown and Vafeidis2018), as projected for the Mediterranean region (Reimann et al., Reference Reimann, Jones, Nikoletopoulos and Vafeidis2021a). Several other studies have developed spatial population projections based on the SSPs at global (e.g., van Huijstee et al., Reference van Huijstee, van Bemmel, Bouwman and van Rijn2018; Murakami and Yamagata, Reference Murakami and Yamagata2019; Boke-Olén and Lehsten, Reference Boke-Olén and Lehsten2022) to continental scale (e.g., Batista et al., Reference Batista, Silva, Dijkstra, Martinez and Lavalle2016; Boke-Olén et al., Reference Boke-Olén, Abdi, Hall and Lehsten2017; Lückenkötter et al., Reference Lückenkötter, Hurth and Schonlau2017; Terama et al., Reference Terama, Clarke, Rounsevell, Fronzek and Carter2019), which we do not include here as they do not report numbers of coastal population development.

Future coastal population development differs markedly across world regions, with a 2.5- (SSP5) to almost 5-fold (SSP3) increase in LECZ population in African countries projected until 2100 (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016). In Asia and Latin America, the highest increase of 66% and 105%, respectively, is expected in SSP3; while in North America, Oceania, and Europe the highest growth is projected under SSP5, with a more than 3-, 4.5-, and 2-fold increase, respectively. Furthermore, North America and Europe are expected to see an up to 28% decrease in LECZ population in SSP3. The highest total number of people living in the LECZ (784 million; SSP3) in 2100 is projected in Asia, corresponding to 66% of the global LECZ population, followed by Africa that makes up 22% (265 million). Despite the substantial increase in LECZ population in African countries, the share of the population living in the LECZ (6–8%) is projected to be lower than in most other world regions where it constitutes up to 18% (Oceania; SSP5) of the total population (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016).

These coastal population patterns are further disaggregated in Figure 4 which shows population shares (2100) and growth (2000–2100) in the LECZ for each SSP and country. Figure 4 illustrates that the future LECZ population varies not only between world regions, but also across countries within the same region; and that future coastal population patterns differ considerably across the five SSPs. For example, we see marked differences on the African continent where coastal population development is largely dominated by the Nile delta; however, coastal population may experience rapid growth (e.g., SSP3) or an increase in the share of people living in the LECZ despite population decline (e.g., SSP5), in particular in western Africa and varying greatly by SSP. In countries of the Global North, opposite patterns in population distribution may occur, with a decline in coastal population under SSP3 and an increase under SSP5, for instance in the USA (Zoraghein and O’Neill, Reference Zoraghein and O’Neill2020a; Zoraghein and O’Neill, Reference Zoraghein and O’Neill2020b).

Figure 4. Population share (%; year 2100) and growth (%; from 2000 to 2100) in the low-elevation coastal zone (LECZ) under the five SSPs.

Beyond exposure – Consider aspects of vulnerability

Globally, the population in the near-coastal zone as well as in the LECZ is expected to continue growing throughout the 21st century, leading to increased exposure to coastal hazards under all SSPs (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016). Coastal population growth patterns differ considerably across world regions and countries (Figure 4); this trend is primarily driven by the socioeconomic developments per SSP (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017), but also by geographical (e.g., the spatial distribution of cities) or local climatic conditions (e.g., heat and humidity). The prevailing global trends suggest that socioeconomic development and human pressure at the coast will be the main driver of coastal risks throughout the 21st century. However, an increase in exposure does not necessarily equate to increased impacts, as impacts are additionally driven by the socioeconomic characteristics of the exposed population that drive their vulnerability and adaptive capacity (Field, Reference Field2012; Hardy and Hauer, Reference Hardy and Hauer2018; IPCC, Reference Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Craig, Langsdorf, Löschke, Möller, Okem and Rama2022).

Aspects of social vulnerability are inherent in the SSPs that have been developed based on their challenges for adaptation, with highest challenges (i.e., low adaptive capacity) in SSP3 where high exposure and vulnerability coincide (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017). However, impacts may differ considerably across world regions: Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Caribbean are projected to experience the highest growth in coastal population exposure under SSP3 (low adaptive capacity), while Europe, North America, and Oceania experience the lowest growth or even decline under this scenario, potentially leading to substantially lower impacts in the Global North compared to the Global South, thereby reinforcing already existing global disparities. Conversely, in the Global North the highest increase in coastal population is projected under SSP5, where high adaptive capacity (e.g., due to rapid economic growth) makes potential impacts more manageable (Merkens et al., Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016; Figure 4).

Similarly, urban areas are expected to experience different development pathways in each SSP, with poorly managed urban settlements in SSP3 and large shares of informal settlements in SSP4 driven by high inequalities, especially in lower-income countries (Jiang and O’Neill, Reference Jiang and O’Neill2017; O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Ebi, Kemp-Benedict, Riahi, Rothman, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Birkmann, Kok, Levy and Solecki2017). With a high concentration of urban settlements in coastal areas, such developments may considerably increase future vulnerability to coastal hazards in these settings. Current coastal impact assessments at continental to global scale do not account for such vulnerability characteristics in a systematic manner due to a lack of consistent data (Hinkel et al., Reference Hinkel, Feyen, Hemer, Le Cozannet, Lincke, Marcos, Mentaschi, Merkens, de Moel, Muis, Nicholls, Vafeidis, van de Wal, Vousdoukas, Wahl, Ward and Wolff2021; Oppenheimer et al., Reference Oppenheimer, Glavovic, Hinkel, van de Wal, Magnan, Abd-Elgawad, Cai, Cifuentes-Jara, DeConto, Ghosh, Hay, Isla, Marzeion, Meyssignac, Sebesvari, Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Nicolai, Okem, Petzold, Rama and Weyer2022; Rasmussen et al., Reference Rasmussen, Kulp, Kopp, Oppenheimer and Strauss2022). However, if such aspects of vulnerability are not considered in studies assessing coastal risks, these studies may potentially over- or underestimate future risk. Therefore, extended SSP narratives that explicitly account for vulnerability characteristics specific to coastal (urban) locations (for instance the work of Merkens et al. (Reference Merkens, Reimann, Hinkel and Vafeidis2016) and Reimann et al. (Reference Reimann, Merkens and Vafeidis2018a)) can form an important basis for more comprehensive assessments of future coastal risks.

Climate change impacts such as sea-level rise will further exacerbate future coastal exposure and vulnerability, thus requiring adaptation responses (Hauer et al., Reference Hauer, Fussell, Mueller, Burkett, Call, Abel, McLeman and Wrathall2020; Oppenheimer et al., Reference Oppenheimer, Glavovic, Hinkel, van de Wal, Magnan, Abd-Elgawad, Cai, Cifuentes-Jara, DeConto, Ghosh, Hay, Isla, Marzeion, Meyssignac, Sebesvari, Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría, Nicolai, Okem, Petzold, Rama and Weyer2022) and/or migration to reduce coastal risk (Black et al., Reference Black, Bennett, Thomas and Beddington2011b; McMichael et al., Reference McMichael, Dasgupta, Ayeb-Karlsson and Kelman2020; Lincke and Hinkel, Reference Lincke and Hinkel2021). However, the SSPs – by definition – do not account for feedbacks between climate change and socioeconomic development (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Kriegler, Riahi, Ebi, Hallegatte, Carter, Mathur and van Vuuren2014) that may affect the attractiveness of coastal locations for human settlement (Horton et al., Reference Horton, de Sherbinin, Wrathall and Oppenheimer2021). For example, multiple or more frequently occurring events, coastal squeeze in locations where coastal infrastructure inhibits wetland migration (Schuerch et al., Reference Schuerch, Spencer, Temmerman, Kirwan, Wolff, Lincke, McOwen, Pickering, Reef, Vafeidis, Hinkel, Nicholls and Brown2018) or gradual decline of available land due to land subsidence can affect livelihoods at the coast by exacerbating risk, potentially driving migration away from the coast (Chen and Mueller, Reference Chen and Mueller2018; Hauer et al., Reference Hauer, Fussell, Mueller, Burkett, Call, Abel, McLeman and Wrathall2020). Although people may move out of the hazard zone in the future, it is likely that they will remain in the proximity of the wider coastal zone (Hauer et al., Reference Hauer, Fussell, Mueller, Burkett, Call, Abel, McLeman and Wrathall2020).

As the response of people to coastal hazards depends on the interactions of a multitude of factors that include, among others, the implementation of adaptation policies, socioeconomic characteristics and social networks (Black et al., Reference Black, Adger, Arnell, Dercon, Geddes and Thomas2011a), potential feedbacks between increasing risk, policy responses (adaptation) and migration need to be considered and explored when projecting future coastal population development (Wrathall et al., Reference Wrathall, Mueller, Clark, Bell, Oppenheimer, Hauer, Kulp, Gilmore, Adams, Kopp, Abel, Call, Chen, DeSherbinin, Fussell, Hay, Jones, Magliocca, Marino, Slangen and Warner2019; Duijndam et al., Reference Duijndam, Botzen, Hagedoorn and Aerts2022). In this context, the SPAs (Box 1) can be combined with the SSPs to explore such policy-related feedbacks; however, the integration of SSPs and SPAs has received very limited attention in previous work. A recent study, which explores the potential effects of adaptation policies on sea-level rise-related internal migration patterns based on combinations of SSPs and SPAs, shows that future migration patterns may be substantially influenced by the type of adaptation policies pursued (e.g., nature-based versus highly engineered solutions) (Reimann et al., Reference Reimann, Jones, Bieker, Wolff, Aerts and Vafeidis2023). This raises questions regarding the possible role of socioeconomic thresholds or tipping points in coastal development, where increased coastal risk could result in a positive feedback loop of migration away from the coast, possibly resulting in abandonment of some coastal stretches, while potentially increasing the proportion of vulnerable populations (Benveniste et al., Reference Benveniste, Oppenheimer and Fleurbaey2022); however, current understanding of these issues is limited (McLeman, Reference McLeman2011; McLeman, Reference McLeman2018; van Ginkel et al., Reference van Ginkel, Haasnoot and Wouter Botzen2022; Duijndam et al., Reference Duijndam, Botzen, Hagedoorn, Bubeck, Haer, Pham and Aerts2023).

In order to reduce future coastal risk, it is likely that densely populated urban areas will rely on hard protection measures, particularly in the developed world (Lincke and Hinkel, Reference Lincke and Hinkel2018), which may enhance population growth in protected locations (so-called “levee effect”) (Di Baldassarre et al., Reference Di Baldassarre, Viglione, Carr, Kuil, Yan, Brandimarte and Blöschl2015). However, maintaining safe human settlements in poorer rural areas will be challenging (Lincke and Hinkel, Reference Lincke and Hinkel2018), potentially leading to migration away from the coast (Lincke and Hinkel, Reference Lincke and Hinkel2021), which will often occur autonomously, that is, without policy support (Black et al., Reference Black, Bennett, Thomas and Beddington2011b; Hauer et al., Reference Hauer, Fussell, Mueller, Burkett, Call, Abel, McLeman and Wrathall2020). Policies addressing managed retreat are, however, not well developed due the complexity of issues surrounding retreat (e.g., compensation, liability for loss and damage, equity) (Hauer et al., Reference Hauer, Fussell, Mueller, Burkett, Call, Abel, McLeman and Wrathall2020; Mach and Siders, Reference Mach and Siders2021). As the coastal adaptation solution space shrinks with rising sea levels, managed retreat becomes a serious option in some low-lying coastal areas (Haasnoot et al., Reference Haasnoot, Lawrence and Magnan2021); and its effects on the distribution of coastal population needs to be explored in order to increase the effectiveness of adaptation policies (Reimann et al., Reference Reimann, Jones, Bieker, Wolff, Aerts and Vafeidis2023).

A systems approach to early adaptation planning with a long-term perspective, also beyond 2100 (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Nicholls, Hanson, Brundrit, Dearing, Dickson, Gallop, Gao, Haigh, Hinkel, Jiménez, Klein, Kron, Lázár, Neves, Newton, Pattiaratachi, Payo, Pye, Sánchez-Arcilla, Siddall, Shareef, Tompkins, Vafeidis, van Maanen, Ward and Woodroffe2014), is instrumental for avoiding disruptive changes in coastal systems that can lead to tipping points such as the abandonment of coastal stretches. To achieve this objective, long-term adaptive planning will be essential in order to avoid maladaptation, lock-ins, increased residual risk (e.g., levee effect) and lack of resources (e.g., sufficient sediment for beach nourishment; de Schipper et al., Reference de Schipper, Ludka, Raubenheimer, Luijendijk and Schlacher Thomas2021). Otto et al. (Reference Otto, Donges, Cremades, Bhowmik, Hewitt, Lucht, Rockström, Allerberger, McCaffrey, Doe, Lenferna, Morán, van Vuuren and Schellnhuber2020) discuss several social tipping interventions that can help promote societal transformation to sustainable development, with spatial planning being a potentially powerful tool in the coastal context.

Action points for future work

Estimating current coastal population and projecting its future development is essential for assessing future coastal risk. Different continental to global studies, however, have produced varying results, stemming from different definitions of the coastal zone (e.g., defined by elevation, distance, and combinations); and from different input data and methods employed for the analyses (e.g., elevation and population data uncertainties, definition of the coastline, methods for addressing data mismatches, scenario assumptions, methods for distributing population) (Lichter et al., Reference Lichter, Vafeidis and Nicholls2010; Hinkel et al., Reference Hinkel, Feyen, Hemer, Le Cozannet, Lincke, Marcos, Mentaschi, Merkens, de Moel, Muis, Nicholls, Vafeidis, van de Wal, Vousdoukas, Wahl, Ward and Wolff2021; MacManus et al., Reference MacManus, Balk, Engin, McGranahan and Inman2021; see also Table 1). As differences in results due to these methodological choices are very difficult to comparatively assess, we emphasize the importance of clear reporting of the underlying definitions, assumptions, data, and methods employed. Regarding the use of population and urban settlement data, for instance, the POPGRID Data Collaborative offers an effective overview to guide application of these datasets in policy and research (Leyk et al., Reference Leyk, Gaughan, Adamo, de Sherbinin, Balk, Freire, Rose, Stevens, Blankespoor, Frye, Comenetz, Sorichetta, MacManus, Pistolesi, Levy, Tatem and Pesaresi2019; POPGRID, 2020).

As coastal population development will continue being a major driver of coastal risks in the future, we emphasize the need to mainstream the use of socioeconomic scenarios (i.e., the SSPs) in order to address uncertainties related to these drivers of risk, while accounting for both, changes in exposure as well as vulnerability. One step toward addressing this need is the development of globally consistent, spatially explicit datasets to characterize both, current and future vulnerability, including indicators such as age, gender, ethnicity, education, and income (Cutter et al., Reference Cutter, Boruff and Shirley2003; Hardy and Hauer, Reference Hardy and Hauer2018; Madajewicz, Reference Madajewicz2020). Furthermore, uncertainties related to feedbacks between changes in climatic conditions (e.g., sea-level rise), adaptation responses, and migration in driving future coastal population and vulnerability need to be explored more systematically. While the assessment of climate- and sea-level rise-related migration at continental to global scale has received increasing attention in recent years (e.g., McLeman and Gemenne, Reference McLeman and Gemenne2018; Rigaud et al., Reference Rigaud, de Sherbinin, Jones, Bergmann, Clement, Ober, Schewe, Adamo, McCusker, Heuser and Midgley2018; Cattaneo et al., Reference Cattaneo, Beine, Fröhlich, Kniveton, Martinez-Zarzoso, Mastrorillo, Millock, Piguet and Schraven2019; Lincke and Hinkel, Reference Lincke and Hinkel2021), the majority of studies focus on estimating the total number of migrants rather than spatial patterns of migration (exceptions are Rigaud et al., Reference Rigaud, de Sherbinin, Jones, Bergmann, Clement, Ober, Schewe, Adamo, McCusker, Heuser and Midgley2018, Reference Rigaud, de Sherbinin, Jones, Abu-Ata and Adamo2021; Clement et al., Reference Clement, Rigaud, De Sherbinin, Jones, Adamo, Schewe, Sadiq and Shabahat2021), rarely accounting for potential effects of adaptation on migration decisions (Wrathall et al., Reference Wrathall, Mueller, Clark, Bell, Oppenheimer, Hauer, Kulp, Gilmore, Adams, Kopp, Abel, Call, Chen, DeSherbinin, Fussell, Hay, Jones, Magliocca, Marino, Slangen and Warner2019; Horton et al., Reference Horton, de Sherbinin, Wrathall and Oppenheimer2021).

Reducing epistemic uncertainties, related to limited knowledge of the system (de Moel et al., Reference de Moel, Jongman, Kreibich, Merz, Penning-Rowsell and Ward2015), would involve better understanding the factors that drive migration to and from the coast. Although the attractiveness of the coast is well established in the literature, it is unclear which factors exert the highest influence in this process. At the same time, there are several studies that analyze what drives migration away from the coast, particularly in response to natural disasters, but these patterns vary considerably depending on the geographic, climatic and socioeconomic context and are still not well understood. These knowledge gaps can be addressed by conducting empirical surveys, aiming at establishing specific factors that drive migration decisions (Duijndam et al., Reference Duijndam, Botzen, Hagedoorn and Aerts2022). The insights of such survey results can be implemented in modeling approaches that combine bottom-up (i.e., individual decisions) and top-down (i.e., aggregate human behavior) methods (Wrathall et al., Reference Wrathall, Mueller, Clark, Bell, Oppenheimer, Hauer, Kulp, Gilmore, Adams, Kopp, Abel, Call, Chen, DeSherbinin, Fussell, Hay, Jones, Magliocca, Marino, Slangen and Warner2019, Horton et al., Reference Horton, de Sherbinin, Wrathall and Oppenheimer2021). A further epistemic uncertainty is the potential effect of shocks such as pandemics or war on socioeconomic development and coastal population, which may be beyond the plausible ranges projected as part of the SSPs. Such events are deliberately excluded from the SSPs; our understanding of these processes is limited, but can be explored in extreme scenarios (so-called “wildcards”) (O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Carter, Ebi, Harrison, Kemp-Benedict, Kok, Kriegler, Preston, Riahi, Sillmann, van Ruijven, van Vuuren, Carlisle, Conde, Fuglestvedt, Green, Hasegawa, Leininger, Monteith and Pichs-Madruga2020).

The points raised above highlight the complexities associated with the process of coastal population development and its role as a determinant of risk. Importantly, they also suggest the need for a shift from projecting population numbers to better accounting for the characteristics of these populations with respect to their vulnerability to coastal hazards, including demographic characteristics such as age and gender, as well as aspects of inequality in shaping adaptive capacity in urban versus rural locations and how these inequalities may affect the ability and willingness to migrate. Such work can build on insights from local studies that have focused on characterizing social vulnerability (e.g., Rohat et al., Reference Rohat, Wilhelmi, Flacke, Monaghan, Gao, van Maarseveen and Dao2021; Balk et al., Reference Balk, Tagtachian, Jiang, Marcotullio, Cook, Jones, Mustafa and McPhearson2022) and scale these up to the continental to global scale, thus allowing for a more integrative approach to understanding the temporal and spatial evolution of risk in coastal areas. Therefore, we would encourage future work that aims to extend and/or update the SSPs, to account for the specific characteristics of socioeconomic development in coastal locations in order to facilitate risk assessments that explore the uncertainties related to these developments and their influence on future population exposure and vulnerability in coastal locations.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.3.

Data availability statement

All datasets used for the analysis are publicly available at the corresponding references.

Author contributions

L.R. developed the paper concept and outline in collaboration with A.T.V. L.E.H. conducted the data analysis and prepared the figures. L.R. and A.T.V. wrote the manuscript with input from L.E.H. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript draft.

Financial support

L.R. was supported by the ERC-funded project COASTMOVE (Grant No. 884442). A.T.V. was supported by the CoCliCo project, which is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant No. 101003598).

Competing interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

Balk, D, Montgomery, MR, McGranahan, G, Kim, D, Mara, V, Todd, M, Buettner, T and Dorélien, AD (2009) Mapping urban settlements and the risks of climate change in Africa, Asia and South America. In Guzmán, JM (ed.), Population Dynamics and Climate Change. New York; London, England: UNFPA, pp. 80103.Google Scholar
Balk, D, Tagtachian, D, Jiang, L, Marcotullio, P, Cook, EM, Jones, B, Mustafa, A and McPhearson, T (2022) Frameworks to envision equitable urban futures in a changing climate: A multi-level, multidisciplinary case study of New York City. Frontiers in Built Environment 8, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batista, E, Silva, F, Dijkstra, L, Martinez, PV and Lavalle, C (2016) Regionalisation of Demographic and Economic Projections, vol. 27924. Luxembourg: Publications Office.Google Scholar
Benveniste, H, Oppenheimer, M and Fleurbaey, M (2022) Climate change increases resource-constrained international immobility. Nature Climate Change 12, 634641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R, Adger, WN, Arnell, NW, Dercon, S, Geddes, A and Thomas, D (2011a) The effect of environmental change on human migration. Global Environmental Change 21, S3S11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R, Bennett, SRG, Thomas, SM and Beddington, JR (2011b) Migration as adaptation. Nature 478, 447449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boke-Olén, N, Abdi, AM, Hall, O and Lehsten, V (2017) High-resolution African population projections from radiative forcing and socio-economic models, 2000 to 2100. Scientific Data 4, 160130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boke-Olén, N and Lehsten, V (2022) High-resolution global population projections dataset developed with CMIP6 RCP and SSP scenarios for year 2010–2100. Data in Brief 40, 107804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondarenko, M, Kerr, D, Sorichetta, A and Tatem, AJ (2020) Census/projection-disaggregated gridded population datasets for 189 countries in 2020 using Built-Settlement Growth Model (BSGM) outputs. WorldPop.Google Scholar
Brown, S, Nicholls, RJ, Hanson, S, Brundrit, G, Dearing, JA, Dickson, ME, Gallop, SL, Gao, S, Haigh, ID, Hinkel, J, Jiménez, JA, Klein, RJT, Kron, W, Lázár, AN, Neves, CF, Newton, A, Pattiaratachi, C, Payo, A, Pye, K, Sánchez-Arcilla, A, Siddall, M, Shareef, A, Tompkins, EL, Vafeidis, AT, van Maanen, B, Ward, PJ and Woodroffe, CD (2014) Shifting perspectives on coastal impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 4, 752755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S, Nicholls, RJ, Lowe, JA and Hinkel, J (2016) Spatial variations of sea-level rise and impacts: An application of DIVA. Climatic Change 134, 403416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S, Nicholls, RJ, Woodroffe, CD, Hanson, S, Hinkel, J, Kebede, AS, Neumann, B and Vafeidis, AT (2013) Sea-level rise impacts and responses: A global perspective. In Finkl, CW (ed.), Coastal Hazards, Coastal Research Library. Dordrecht: Springer SV, pp. 117149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattaneo, C, Beine, M, Fröhlich, CJ, Kniveton, D, Martinez-Zarzoso, I, Mastrorillo, M, Millock, K, Piguet, E and Schraven, B (2019) Human migration in the era of climate change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13, 189206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J and Mueller, V (2018) Coastal climate change, soil salinity and human migration in Bangladesh. Nature Climate Change 8, 981985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIESIN (2000) Gridded Population of the World (GPW), Version 2.0 Online: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/metadata/sample_record_pprint.html#DISTRIBUTION.Google Scholar
CIESIN (2011) Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project, Version 1. GRUMPv1: Urban Extents Grid.Google Scholar
CIESIN, FAO and CIAT (2005) Gridded Population of the World, Version 3. GPWv3: Population Count Grid.Google Scholar
CIESIN, IFPRI, The World Bank and CIAT (2011) Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project, Version 1 (GRUMPv1): Population Count Grid.Google Scholar
Clement, V, Rigaud, KK, De Sherbinin, A, Jones, B, Adamo, S, Schewe, J, Sadiq, N and Shabahat, E (2021) Groundswell part 2: Acting on internal climate migration. World Bank, Washington, DC, 1362. Online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36248.Google Scholar
Crespo Cuaresma, J (2017) Income projections for climate change research: A framework based on human capital dynamics. Global Environmental Change 42, 226236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, SL, Boruff, BJ and Shirley, WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84, 242261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Moel, H, Jongman, B, Kreibich, H, Merz, B, Penning-Rowsell, E and Ward, PJ (2015) Flood risk assessments at different spatial scales. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 20, 865890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Schipper, MA, Ludka, BC, Raubenheimer, B, Luijendijk, AP and Schlacher Thomas, A (2021) Beach nourishment has complex implications for the future of sandy shores. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2, 7084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellink, R, Chateau, J, Lanzi, E and Magné, B (2017) Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environmental Change 42, 200214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Baldassarre, G, Viglione, A, Carr, G, Kuil, L, Yan, K, Brandimarte, L and Blöschl, G (2015) Debates-perspectives on socio-hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes. Water Resources Research 51, 47704781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodman, D, Hayward, B, Pelling, M, Castan Broto, V, Chow, W, Chu, E, Dawson, R, Khirfan, L, McPhearson, T, Prakash, A, Zheng, Y and Ziervogel, G (2022) Cities, settlements and key infrastructure. In Pörtner, H-O, Roberts, DC, Tignor, M, Poloczanska, ES, Mintenbeck, K, Alegría, A, Craig, M, Langsdorf, S, Löschke, S, Möller, V, Okem, A and Rama, B (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press.Google Scholar
Duijndam, SJ, Botzen, WJW, Hagedoorn, LC and Aerts, JCJH (2022) Anticipating sea‐level rise and human migration: A review of empirical evidence and avenues for future research. WIREs Climate Change 13, e747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duijndam, SJ, Botzen, WJW, Hagedoorn, LC, Bubeck, P, Haer, T, Pham, M and Aerts, JCJH (2023) Drivers of migration intentions in coastal Vietnam under increased flood risk from sea level rise. Climatic Change 176 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, TG, Rosen, PA, Caro, E, Crippen, R, Duren, R, Hensley, S, Kobrick, M, Paller, M, Rodriguez, E, Roth, L, Seal, D, Shaffer, S, Shimada, J, Umland, J, Werner, M, Oskin, M, Burbank, D and Alsdorf, D (2007) The shuttle radar topography Mission. Reviews of Geophysics 45, 1-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, CB (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florczyk, AJ, Corbane, C, Ehrlich, D, Freire, S, Kemper, T, Maffenini, L, Melchiorri, M, Pesaresi, M, Politis, P, Schiavina, M, Sabo, F and Zanchetta, L (2019 ) GHSL Data Package 2019, vol. 29788. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Online: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1112369877.Google Scholar
Foresight (2011) Migration and Global Environmental Change. Final Project Report.Google Scholar
Haasnoot, M, Lawrence, J and Magnan, AK (2021) Pathways to coastal retreat. Science (1979) 372, 12871290.Google ScholarPubMed
Hardy, RD and Hauer, ME (2018) Social vulnerability projections improve sea-level rise risk assessments. Applied Geography 91, 1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauer, ME, Fussell, E, Mueller, V, Burkett, M, Call, M, Abel, K, McLeman, R and Wrathall, D (2020) Sea-level rise and human migration. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1, 2839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, J, Aerts, JCJH, Brown, S, Jiménez, JA, Lincke, D, Nicholls, RJ, Scussolini, P, Sanchez-Arcilla, A, Vafeidis, A and Addo, KA (2018) The ability of societies to adapt to twenty-first-century sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change 8, 570578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, J, Feyen, L, Hemer, M, Le Cozannet, G, Lincke, D, Marcos, M, Mentaschi, L, Merkens, JL, de Moel, H, Muis, S, Nicholls, RJ, Vafeidis, AT, van de Wal, RSW, Vousdoukas, MI, Wahl, T, Ward, PJ and Wolff, C (2021) Uncertainty and bias in global to regional scale assessments of current and future coastal flood risk. Earths Future 9, 128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinkel, J, Lincke, D, Vafeidis, AT, Perrette, M, Nicholls, RJ, Tol, RSJ, Marzeion, B, Fettweis, X, Ionescu, C and Levermann, A (2014) Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 32923297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoornweg, D and Pope, K (2017) Population predictions for the world’s largest cities in the 21st century. Environment and Urbanization 29, 195216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, RM, de Sherbinin, A, Wrathall, D and Oppenheimer, M (2021) Assessing human habitability and migration. Science (1979) 372, 12791283.Google ScholarPubMed
Hugo, G (2011) Future demographic change and its interactions with migration and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21, S21S33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2021) Summary for policymakers. In Masson-Delmotte, V, Zhai, P, Pirani, A, Connors, SL, Péan, C, Berger, S, Caud, N, Chen, Y, Goldfarb, L, Gomis, MI, Huang, M, Leitzell, K, Lonnoy, E, Matthews, JBR, Maycock, TK, Waterfield, T, Yelekci, O, Yu, R and Zhou, B (eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 332.Google Scholar
IPCC (2022) Summary for policymakers. In Pörtner, H-O, Roberts, DC, Tignor, M, Poloczanska, E, Mintenbeck, K, Alegría, A, Craig, M, Langsdorf, S, Löschke, S, Möller, A, Okem, A and Rama, B (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jiang, L and O’Neill, BC (2017) Global urbanization projections for the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environmental Change 42, 193199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B and O’Neill, BC (2016) Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 084003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KC, S and Lutz, W (2017) The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Global Environmental Change 42, 181192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein Goldewijk, K, Beusen, A and Janssen, P (2010) Long-term dynamic modeling of global population and built-up area in a spatially explicit way: HYDE 3.1. Holocene 20, 565573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koks, EE, Rozenberg, J, Zorn, C, Tariverdi, M, Vousdoukas, M, Fraser, SA, Hall, JW and Hallegatte, S (2019) A global multi-hazard risk analysis of road and railway infrastructure assets. Nature Communications 10, 2677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kulp, SA and Strauss, BH (2019) New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nature Communications 10, 4844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kummu, M, de Moel, H, Salvucci, G, Viviroli, D, Ward, PJ and Varis, O (2016) Over the hills and further away from coast: Global geospatial patterns of human and environment over the 20th–21st centuries. Environmental Research Letters 11, 034010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyk, S, Gaughan, AE, Adamo, SB, de Sherbinin, A, Balk, D, Freire, S, Rose, A, Stevens, FR, Blankespoor, B, Frye, C, Comenetz, J, Sorichetta, A, MacManus, K, Pistolesi, L, Levy, M, Tatem, AJ and Pesaresi, M (2019) The spatial allocation of population: A review of large-scale gridded population data products and their fitness for use. Earth System Science Data 11, 13851409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichter, M, Vafeidis, AT and Nicholls, RJ (2010) Exploring data-related uncertainties in analyses of land area and population in the “low-elevation coastal zone” (LECZ). Journal of Coastal Research 27, 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincke, D and Hinkel, J (2018) Economically robust protection against 21st century sea-level rise. Global Environmental Change 51, 6773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincke, D and Hinkel, J (2021) Coastal migration due to 21st Century Sea-level rise. Earths Future 9, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lückenkötter, J, Hurth, F and Schonlau, M (2017) European Population Projections for 2015–2060: 10-Km Gridded Data Based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). TU Dortmund: IRPUD.Google Scholar
Mach, KJ and Siders, AR (2021) Reframing strategic, managed retreat for transformative climate adaptation. Science (1979) 372, 12941299.Google ScholarPubMed
MacManus, K, Balk, D, Engin, H, McGranahan, G and Inman, R (2021) Estimating population and urban areas at risk of coastal hazards, 1990–2015: How data choices matter. Earth System Science Data 13, 57475801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madajewicz, M (2020) Who is vulnerable and who is resilient to coastal flooding? Lessons from Hurricane Sandy in New York City. Climatic Change 163, 20292053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnan, AK, Garschagen, M, Gattuso, J-P, Hay, JE, Hilmi, N, Holland, E, Isla, F, Kofinas, G, Losada, IJ, Petzold, J, Ratter, B, Schuur, T, Tabe, T and van de Wal, R (2022) Integrative cross-chapter box on low-Lying Islands and coasts. In Pörtner, H-O, Roberts, D-C, Masson-Delmotte, V, Zhai, P, Tignor, M, Poloczanska, E, Mintenbeck, K, Alegría, A, Nicolai, M, Okem, A, Petzold, J, Rama, B and Weyer, NM (eds.), The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 657674.Google Scholar
Marzeion, B and Levermann, A (2014) Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environmental Research Letters 9, 34001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGranahan, G, Balk, D and Anderson, B (2007) The rising tide. Environment and Urbanization 19, 1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeman, RA (2011) Settlement abandonment in the context of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 21, S108S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeman, R (2018) Thresholds in climate migration. Population and Environment 39, 319338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeman, R and Gemenne, F (2018) Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMichael, C, Dasgupta, S, Ayeb-Karlsson, S and Kelman, I (2020) A review of estimating population exposure to sea-level rise and the relevance for migration. Environmental Research Letters 15, 123005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merkens, J-L (2019) Improving the representation of the spatial distribution of population for coastal impact and vulnerability assessments. PhD thesis. Online: https://macau.uni-kiel.de/receive/macau_mods_00000389.Google Scholar
Merkens, J-L, Lincke, D, Hinkel, J, Brown, S and Vafeidis, AT (2018) Regionalisation of population growth projections in coastal exposure analysis. Climatic Change 151, 413426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkens, J-L, Reimann, L, Hinkel, J and Vafeidis, AT (2016) Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global and Planetary Change 145, 5766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muis, S, Verlaan, M, Nicholls, RJ, Brown, S, Hinkel, J, Lincke, D, Vafeidis, AT, Scussolini, P, Winsemius, HC and Ward, PJ (2017) A comparison of two global datasets of extreme sea levels and resulting flood exposure. Earth’s Future 5, 379392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, D and Yamagata, Y (2019) Estimation of gridded population and GDP scenarios with spatially explicit statistical downscaling. Sustainability 11, 2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, B, Vafeidis, AT, Zimmermann, J and Nicholls, RJ (2015) Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding: A global assessment. PLoS One 10, e0118571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, RJ (2004) Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change 14, 6986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, RJ, Brown, S, Goodwin, P, Wahl, T, Lowe, J, Solan, M, Godbold, JA, Haigh, ID, Lincke, D, Hinkel, J, Wolff, C and Merkens, J-L (2018) Stabilization of global temperature at 1.5°C and 2.0°C. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 20160448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, RJ, Lincke, D, Hinkel, J, Brown, S, Vafeidis, AT, Meyssignac, B, Hanson, SE, Merkens, J-L and Fang, J (2021) A global analysis of subsidence, relative sea-level change and coastal flood exposure. Nature Climate Change 11, 634634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, RJ, Marinova, N, Lowe, JA, Brown, S, Vellinga, P, Gusmao, D, Hinkel, J and Tol, RSJ (2011) Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a “beyond 4 degrees C world” in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, 161181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, RJ, Wong, PP, Burkett, V, Woodroffe, CD and Hay, J (2008) Climate change and coastal vulnerability assessment: Scenarios for integrated assessment. Sustainability Science 3, 89102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, BC, Carter, TR, Ebi, K, Harrison, PA, Kemp-Benedict, E, Kok, K, Kriegler, E, Preston, BL, Riahi, K, Sillmann, J, van Ruijven, BJ, van Vuuren, D, Carlisle, D, Conde, C, Fuglestvedt, J, Green, C, Hasegawa, T, Leininger, J, Monteith, S and Pichs-Madruga, R (2020) Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nature Climate Change 10, 10741084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, BC, Kriegler, E, Ebi, KL, Kemp-Benedict, E, Riahi, K, Rothman, DS, van Ruijven, BJ, van Vuuren, DP, Birkmann, J, Kok, K, Levy, M and Solecki, W (2017) The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change 42, 169180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, BC, Kriegler, E, Riahi, K, Ebi, KL, Hallegatte, S, Carter, TR, Mathur, R and van Vuuren, DP (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 122, 387400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, M, Glavovic, BC, Hinkel, J, van de Wal, R, Magnan, AK, Abd-Elgawad, A, Cai, R, Cifuentes-Jara, M, DeConto, RM, Ghosh, T, Hay, J, Isla, F, Marzeion, B, Meyssignac, B and Sebesvari, Z (2022) Sea level rise and implications for low-lying Islands, coasts and communities. In Pörtner, H-O, Roberts, D-C, Masson-Delmotte, V, Zhai, P, Tignor, M, Poloczanska, E, Mintenbeck, K, Alegría, A, Nicolai, M, Okem, A, Petzold, J, Rama, B and Weyer, NM (eds.), The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321446.Google Scholar
Otto, IM, Donges, JF, Cremades, R, Bhowmik, A, Hewitt, RJ, Lucht, W, Rockström, J, Allerberger, F, McCaffrey, M, Doe, SSP, Lenferna, A, Morán, N, van Vuuren, DP and Schellnhuber, HJ (2020) Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 23542365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
POPGRID (2020) Leaving no one off the Map. A guide for gridded population data for sustainable development.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, DJ, Kulp, S, Kopp, RE, Oppenheimer, M and Strauss, BH (2022) Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts. Climatic Change 170, 30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reimann, L (2021) Towards a comprehensive assessment of exposure to sea-level rise at continental scale. PhD thesis. Online: https://macau.uni-kiel.de/receive/macau_mods_00001360.Google Scholar
Reimann, L, Jones, B, Bieker, N, Wolff, C, Aerts, JCJH and Vafeidis, AT (2023) Beyond migrant numbers—Exploring feedbacks between adaptation decisions and spatial patterns of migration due to sea-level rise Nature Communications, under review.Google Scholar
Reimann, L, Jones, B, Nikoletopoulos, T and Vafeidis, AT (2021a) Accounting for internal migration in spatial population projections—A gravity-based modeling approach using the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environmental Research Letters 16, 074025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimann, L, Merkens, J-L and Vafeidis, AT (2018a) Regionalized shared socioeconomic pathways: Narratives and spatial population projections for the Mediterranean coastal zone. Regional Environmental Change 18, 235245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimann, L, Vafeidis, AT, Brown, S, Hinkel, J and Tol, RSJ (2018b) Mediterranean UNESCO world heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea-level rise. Nature Communications 9, 4161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reimann, L, Vollstedt, B, Koerth, J, Tsakiris, M, Beer, M and Vafeidis, AT (2021b) Extending the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) to support local adaptation planning—A climate service for Flensburg, Germany. Futures 127, 102691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigaud, KK, de Sherbinin, A, Jones, B, Abu-Ata, NE and Adamo, S (2021) Groundswell Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Rigaud, KK, de Sherbinin, A, Jones, B, Bergmann, J, Clement, V, Ober, K, Schewe, J, Adamo, S, McCusker, B, Heuser, S and Midgley, A (2018) Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohat, G (2018) Projecting drivers of human vulnerability under the shared socioeconomic pathways. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohat, G, Flacke, J, Dosio, A, Pedde, S, Dao, H and van Maarseveen, M (2019) Influence of changes in socioeconomic and climatic conditions on future heat-related health challenges in Europe. Global and Planetary Change 172, 4559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohat, G, Wilhelmi, O, Flacke, J, Monaghan, A, Gao, J, van Maarseveen, M and Dao, H (2021) Assessing urban heat-related adaptation strategies under multiple futures for a major U.S. city. Climatic Change 164, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiavina, M, Freire, S and MacManus, K (2019) GHS population grid multitemporal (1975, 1990, 2000, 2015) R2019A. Online: http://data.europa.eu/89h/0c6b9751-a71f-4062-830b-43c9f432370f.Google Scholar
Schneider, A, Friedl, MA and Potere, D (2009) A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite data. Environmental Research Letters 4, 44003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuerch, M, Spencer, T, Temmerman, S, Kirwan, ML, Wolff, C, Lincke, D, McOwen, CJ, Pickering, MD, Reef, R, Vafeidis, AT, Hinkel, J, Nicholls, RJ and Brown, S (2018) Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561, 231234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seto, KC (2011) Exploring the dynamics of migration to mega-delta cities in Asia and Africa: Contemporary drivers and future scenarios. Global Environmental Change 21, S94S107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seto, KC, Fragkias, M, Güneralp, B and Reilly, MK (2011) A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS One 6, e23777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirzaei, M, Freymueller, J, Törnqvist, TE, Galloway, DL, Dura, T and Minderhoud, PSJ (2021) Measuring, modelling and projecting coastal land subsidence. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2, 4058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, C and Nicholls, RJ (2003) A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research 19, 584599.Google Scholar
Terama, E, Clarke, E, Rounsevell, MDA, Fronzek, S and Carter, TR (2019) Modelling population structure in the context of urban land use change in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 19, 667677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiggeloven, T, Moel, H, Winsemius, HC, Eilander, D, Erkens, G, Gebremedhin, E, Diaz Loaiza, A, Kuzma, S, Luo, T, Iceland, C, Bouwman, A, van Huijstee, J, Ligtvoet, W and Ward, PJ (2020) Global-scale benefit–cost analysis of coastal flood adaptation to different flood risk drivers using structural measures. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 20, 10251044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USGS (1996) Global Digital Elevation Model. GTOPO30. Online: http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.Google Scholar
Vafeidis, AT, Schuerch, M, Wolff, C, Spencer, T, Merkens, JL, Hinkel, J, Lincke, D, Brown, S and Nicholls, RJ (2019) Water-level attenuation in global-scale assessments of exposure to coastal flooding. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 19, 973984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ginkel, KCH, Haasnoot, M and Wouter Botzen, WJ (2022) A stepwise approach for identifying climate change induced socio-economic tipping points. Climate Risk Management 37, 100445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Huijstee, J, van Bemmel, B, Bouwman, A and van Rijn, F (2018) Towards an Urban Preview: Modelling Future Urban Growth with 2UP. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
van Vuuren, DP, Kriegler, E, O’Neill, BC, Ebi, KL, Riahi, K, Carter, TR, Edmonds, J, Hallegatte, S, Kram, T, Mathur, R and Winkler, H (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: Scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change 122, 373386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vousdoukas, MI, Mentaschi, L, Hinkel, J, Ward, PJ, Mongelli, I, Ciscar, J-C and Feyen, L (2020) Economic motivation for raising coastal flood defenses in Europe. Nature Communications 11, 2119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wrathall, DJ, Mueller, V, Clark, PU, Bell, A, Oppenheimer, M, Hauer, M, Kulp, S, Gilmore, E, Adams, H, Kopp, R, Abel, K, Call, M, Chen, J, DeSherbinin, A, Fussell, E, Hay, C, Jones, B, Magliocca, N, Marino, E, Slangen, A and Warner, K (2019) Meeting the looming policy challenge of sea-level change and human migration. Nature Climate Change 9, 898901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamazaki, D, Ikeshima, D, Tawatari, R, Yamaguchi, T, O’Loughlin, F, Neal, JC, Sampson, CC, Kanae, S and Bates, PD (2017) A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations. Geophysical Research Letters 44, 58445853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yesudian, AN and Dawson, RJ (2021) Global analysis of sea level rise risk to airports. Climate Risk Management 31, 100266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoraghein, H and O’Neill, B (2020a) A spatial population downscaling model for integrated human-environment analysis in the United States. Demographic Research 43, 14831526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoraghein, H and O’Neill, BC (2020b) U.S. state-level projections of the spatial distribution of population consistent with shared socioeconomic pathways. Sustainability 12, 3374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zscheischler, J, Martius, O, Westra, S, Bevacqua, E, Raymond, C, Horton, RM, van den Hurk, B, AghaKouchak, A, Jézéquel, A, Mahecha, MD, Maraun, D, Ramos, AM, Ridder, NN, Thiery, W and Vignotto, E (2020) A typology of compound weather and climate events. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1, 333347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. The five SSPs with their challenges for mitigation and adaptation (adapted from O’Neill et al., 2017).

Figure 1

Table 1. Overview of reviewed studies including their assumptions and datasets used (extended from Merkens, 2019)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Global population (in billions) in 2020 by (a) distance from the coast and (b) elevation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Global population (in billions) in 2020 versus 2100 by (a) distance from the coast and (b) elevation.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Population share (%; year 2100) and growth (%; from 2000 to 2100) in the low-elevation coastal zone (LECZ) under the five SSPs.

Author comment: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear editor,

as agreed, we are now submitting the commissioned review article with the final title "Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways".

On behalf of all co-authors,

Sincerely yours,

Lena Reimann

Review: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R0/PR2

Comments

Comments to Author: This is a good study, but needs some methodological expansion (just telling the reader what you've done more specifically) and more framing around the SSPs. A paper like this will go much farther if the readers do not have to be familiar with the SSPs to read it! It'll make a real contribution with revisions. Thought it would be possible to upload a document with the review, but appears not so apologies for lost formatting.

This is good study, but to my reading, it is incomplete. Here are suggestions for the authors to supplement and improve the study. Apologies for typos and brevity in the remarks.

Introduction is too short: Reader is expected to have a grasp of SSPs or Scenarios/Visioning tools. For the latter, see work of Hamstead et al. 2021, Resilient Urban Futures, as an example. So, more context and description of the contribution of this paper is needed:

Some particular clarifications are need here:

• Lines 80-86. Disconnect between “few studies do account for internal migration processes … or dynamics in urban settlement…” and next sentence “bias in coastal impacts assessment … focusing on the hazard rather than the socioeconomic development”. Explanation is need as to why internal migration processes or dynamics in urbanization are not themselves socioeconomic processes or the result of them (such as migration pull-factors labor markets and employment opportunities; and demographic factors – fertility, for example, resulting in either urban-to-rural migration or city growth).

• References to “scenarios” as early as the abstract (line 40) and line 91, and then Foresight scenarios (line 161), etc. need some explanation. What are scenarios and why are they a valuable exercise here? Helpful to have scenarios (in general and the SSPs) before getting to line 91.

• Lines 91-92, why do the scenarios (rather than say population projections) showcase uncertainty?

• Lines 92-93, “how socioeconomic development may drive vulnerable”? Here it is helpful again to note that the SSPs themselves are not policy proscriptive. Some reference to the Shared Policy Assumptions (SPAs) would also be helpful here.

• The end of the introduction should layout the structure of the paper and the key questions it will address.

Section 2 is the start of the analysis, but not much detail is given apart from lines 112-124. How was distance calculated? What common map projection was used, and what other methods used to create these estimates?

• Provide a clear definition of what this study uses for its LECZ (up to 100 km?). It refers to other studies using different LECZ definition (Neumann et al., 2015, McGranahan et al., 2007 and MacManus et al., 2021), and what this means for the various comparative description here.

• Why include estimates up to 100 km from the coast? Prior studies (e.g., Small and Nicolls, 2003) did that in part because the resolution of their inputs did not allow for much finer estimation, but the data you are using, Worldpop (both in its inputs and output resolution) allow for much finer cuts. Please justify why living up to from 100km from sea-coast is still a useful policy or social framework. Is it useful for the future visioning component because potentially displaced nearer-coastal dwellers will move there? Is this the wider coastal region (Hauer et al., 2020).

• Similarly, please define “urbanization” in urbanization “levels”. Line 123. If the authors are relying on others studies’ definitions of “urban”, helpful to note where they may or may not agree. The point that these patterns emerge across a range of possible urban constructs is important, but better not to simplify the construct, particularly as urban change is one of the possible future pathways/scenarios that is of interest.

• Figure 1b appears before Figure 1a. What are the source of these data? The authors calculations and if so, based on what data sources?

Section 3.

Here the reader needs a refresher in (or introduction, if not familiar with) the different SSPs. The figures make clear that there is variation, but what do these mean in substantive terms of development pathways and importantly the social vulnerability components noted as the key focus at the beginning of the paper. That is, identify how the social vulnerability components are built-in or implied by the different SSPs (or not, if the vulnerability is simply where these different coastal dwellers will reside).

Also, how do the Foresight scenarios differ from the SSPs narratives?

In general, the paragraph starting with 158 is rich, but could be unpacked for the more novice reader. Add another sentence or two on the merits of the Foresight approach, the Merkens global coastal estimates, the Jones and O’Neill study and the Reimann papers would help to understand where this analysis is making an improvement over the others. (A clearer method section as noted above would also aid in this.)

Lines 184-189. Comment on the Africa results. Clearly the continent with the most urbanization left to unfold, but also with many more land-locked countries and no major delta apart from the Nile. But some parts of West Africa, in particular have a lot of potential exposure.

Mention why showing SSPs 1, 3, and 5 in the maps. Clearly 3 has to be shown as it’s the highest across the board, but why not SSP2 as well since its Business-as-usual is frequently given. Interestingly, the “sustainability SSP (1)” is arguably not so different from SSP 5 “regional rivalry” but also the only one that is compatible with RCP 8.5.

Expand this section in order to make the connections to vulnerability. For example, the coastal zone is disproportionately urban (McGranahan et al., 2007). That feature may also make it more vulnerable in many ways. Urban areas are home to highly unequal development pathways themselves in many ways (redlining in the US, slum or substandard developments in most countries, etc) and while they are also more diverse, may have more opportunities for injustices and increasing vulnerabilities. Even if this study cannot identify these aspects of urban heterogeneity at a global scale, make connections between the implications of what the SSP pathways and vulnerabilities like this would be an important contribution of this study.

Section 4.

This section is good, and will be much easier to understand it with the SSP framework spelled out as suggested in the earlier sections. This would allow you to discuss in even greater detail about extension to the SSPs for coastal regions, particularly those relating to migration, urbanization (and peri-urban development) and diversity (heretofore largely untouched by the SSP framework). Starting in line 227, would like to see “policy responses” get its own section and maybe a discussion of the limitations of the SSP framework if it can’t include feedbacks. (The SPA component of the SSP/SPA framing has gotten far less attention.) How to put these futures into a planning or policy framework?

• Suggested change of “managed retreat” (line 243) to “relocation” or “strategic relocation”. These terms are politically loaded (who’s doing the managing? Or strategizing). Also, some dislocation happens without planning, and without compensation, etc… Worth mentioning.

• Worth mentioning that some “tools” or plans may be maladaptive ‐‐ such as flood and emergency management programs or disaster assistance, beach "renourishment" programs, and even "buy-back" programs when applied unequally.

Section 5.

Promise of revealing “uncertainties” is not so strongly borne out in this paper, unless it is simply using the different SSPs. That said, the discussion of uncertainty in this section is excellent qualitatively and a great platform for recommendations for further research. How we can better characterize uncertainly now and prepare to do even better in the future? I would use it to also draw out further the constructive criticism of the limitations of the SSPs.

Line 300, why discount population projections? That is, population estimation forms the basis of this paper and it is a very useful contribution. Why not take it further and illustrate how those estimates need to be unpacked – along an urban-rural continuum, with attention to migration patterns, and inequality (with its many definitions) and – particularly in the coastal zone because that zone is likely to continue to growth despite SLR and increasing coastal hazards, and because coastal areas additional vulnerabilities in the development pathways (e.g., subsidence, some compound risks). Cities can adopt frameworks used in several studies by Rohat et al. (such as 2021 and 2019) or by Balk et al. (2022, in Frontiers in the Built Environment), and your paper can contribute to how to make such improvements at a regional and global scale.

Minor:

• Unusual to see “(Ref, year; e.g., ref year)”. Defer to editors on this.

• Line 140 change to sprawling vs compact

• Figures 2a and 2b, make dotted line (2020) thicker or use a dash. Hard to see.

• Define fluvial (i.e., river) and pluvial (i.e., rain).

Recommendation: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R0/PR3

Comments

Comments to Author: This review provides a good analysis of population dynamics as a driver of coastal risk. However, it currently relies greatly on assumed reader knowledge of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways which makes the paper difficult to engage with for an audience less aware of IPCC processes and projected greenhouse gas emission scenarios. As such, more detail is needed in the introduction to expand why SSPs have been used to frame the analysis. At very least, the different SSPs need to be presented for readers. This is also true for the mention of Foresight Scenarios (Section 3) that are also not defined in the body of the paper. An explanation as to how (or not) risk, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity are dealt with within these scenarios would also be useful for the reader which would provide the opportunity to critique the limitations of these scenarios which would be a very valuable contribution.

These explanations will also allow provide space for the authors to justify and/or the methodological decisions they have taken around datasets and models utilised as well as further definitions/clarification of concepts such as LECZ and near-coastal zone terms.

Overall, the discussions presented in the last two sections of this paper contribute greatly to the discourse around population and current uncertainty in current estimations of dynamics. Making the beginning of the paper more accessible will help round the paper out and increase impact.

Figure comments –

Figure 2 – it is difficult to identify the 2020 line in both a) and b).

Figure 3 – why were these three scenarios selected?

Decision: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R1/PR5

Comments

Dear Prof. Spencer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled “Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways”. We appreciate the valuable and constructive comments provided by yourself, the handling editor, and the reviewer. We have now responded to the comments and implemented the suggestions, which has resulted in a carefully revised version of the manuscript.

In particular, we have addressed the following four aspects, 1) we have revised the introduction section to define the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and justify the study’s focus on the SSPs; 2) we have added methodological detail regarding the data processing and coastal definitions; 3) we now reflect on urbanization processes more explicitly; and 4) we have revised Figures 2 and 3 (previously Figures 1 and 2).

Please find a complete account of the changes made in our responses to each comment in the attached document. We believe that the manuscript has improved considerably. We therefore hope that the manuscript now qualifies for publication.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that, upon acceptance, we will be able to provide higher-resolution versions of all figures.

On behalf of the authors, I rest at your disposal for any clarifications you may require.

Sincerely yours,

Lena Reimann

Review: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R1/PR6

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The revision is clearer and improved! I recommend publication with the following minor changes:

First, the content of Supplemental Material 1 belongs in the body of the main text. (I’d be fine with SM2 and 3 also being presented in the main text, but since SM1 contains basic methods upon which the study rests, it should not be in the supplement only.)

Second, Box 1 is very helpful. Last sentence needs some work.

“These projections provide the basis for down-scaling exercises that account for spatial development trends such as internal migration processes and urban sprawl.”

Should read something like this instead (changes indicated in caps):

“The ASSUMPTIONS THAT INFORM THESE projections provide the basis for down-scaling exercises that account for TRENDS, SUCH AS INTERNAL MIGRATION OR URBAN FORM AND DEVELOPMENT, THAT ALTER THE spatial DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION.”

Third, and very minor, identify what the “constraint” is in the constrained version of WorldPop.

Fourth, lines 222-225 give useful context for interpretation. FWIW, in the recent study by Zoraghein and O’Neill (2020) – of an application of the SSPs to the US – they have two papers published in (1) Demographic Research and (2) Sustainability that show population declines in parts of the US, New York State, for SSP3 but increases in SSP5, with implications for the coastal zone (might have to download the data to see this). Just worth noting that location matters in the application of the SSPs.

Fifth, the paragraph starting line 239. Many aspects of vulnerability in the coastal are not captured in the SSP narratives (see work on the US by Bukvic and colleagues for example, or many other local studies). I encourage the authors to think about what some of these are (coastal zones are disproportionately urban – and while they may have more economic opportunities, urban areas are more diverse, have more immigrants, are more linguistic diversity, have more inadequate housing and so forth – each of these presents another aspect of vulnerability and thus adaptive capacity). If the SSPs narratives do not directly address these vulnerabilities, what do the authors recommend for preparing to address differential vulnerabilities to future coastal hazards (noting that the exposures may also differ by vulnerability characteristics).

Finally, and related to the last suggestion, can the authors comment on limitations to the SSPs for envisioning coastal futures? Since (as I understand it) the SSPs will be updated at some point in the not-to-distant future, it would be helpful to indicate what changes these authors would recommend for better understanding coastal development futures and related vulnerabilities.

Well done!

Recommendation: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R1/PR7

Comments

Comments to Author: The review process and modifications to the manuscript made by the authors have improved the review greatly. The authors are encouraged to think about the points on coastal vulnerabilities not captured by the SSP narratives raised during the second review. In addition, to reinforce the point made during the review process, commentary on changes to the SSPs in the face of current limitations would be really useful.

Decision: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R2/PR9

Comments

Dear Prof. Spencer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address the remaining reviewer comments regarding the manuscript entitled “Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways”. We have now responded to their comments and implemented the suggestions, which you can find in the attached document. We hope that the manuscript now qualifies for publication.

We would like to stress once more that, upon acceptance, we will be able to provide higher-resolution versions of all figures if needed. Furthermore, we are currently also working on a graphical abstract which we will be able to provide upon manuscript acceptance.

On behalf of the authors, I rest at your disposal for any clarifications you may require.

Sincerely yours,

Lena Reimann

Recommendation: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R2/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Population development as a driver of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.