DOCSLIB.ORG

Effect of Sea Level Rise on Energy Infrastructure in Four Major Metropolitan Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effect of Sea Level Rise on Energy Infrastructure in Four Major Metropolitan Areas Effect of Sea Level Rise on Energy Infrastructure in Four Major Metropolitan Areas September 2014 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Pilot Study on the Effect of Sea Level Rise on Energy Infrastructure in Four Major Metropolitan Areas August 2014 Effect of Sea Level Rise on Energy Infrastructure in Four Major Metropolitan Areas Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability U.S. Department of Energy September 2014 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Sea Level Rise Trends .............................................................................................................................................. 3 3. Approach Overview and Data ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Step 1: Locate Energy Assets .................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Step 2: Assess Against SLR Increments ................................................................................................ 8 3.3. Step 3: Assign SLR Time Component .................................................................................................... 9 3.4. Step 4: Visually Assess for Impacts ..................................................................................................... 11 3.5. Caveats ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 4. Results for the Four Pilot MSAs ........................................................................................................................ 13 4.1. New York City MSA .................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2. Miami MSA .................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.3. Houston MSA ............................................................................................................................................... 23 4.4. Los Angeles MSA ......................................................................................................................................... 26 5. Observations and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix A: Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Appendix B: Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 34 i List of Exhibits Exhibit 2-1. Historical and Projected Global Sea Level Rise .......................................................................... 4 Exhibit 2-2. Miami SLR Projections, based on NCA Global SLR Scenarios ............................................... 5 Exhibit 3-1. Study Approach in Four Steps .......................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 3-2. Energy Assets Included in the Study .............................................................................................. 7 Exhibit 3-3. Mapping SLR in Miami using NOAA Data ..................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 3-4. SLR Projections Over Time for Miami by NCA Scenario, with Projected Dates for 3 feet of SLR Highlighted ................................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 3-5. Years Corresponding to SLR Increments in Miami MSA under Four NCA Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 4-1. Count of Inundated Assets under Four NCA Scenarios ....................................................... 13 Exhibit 4-2. Percent of Inundated Assets under Four NCA Scenarios .................................................... 14 Exhibit 4-3. Years Corresponding to SLR Increments in New York MSA under Four NCA Scenarios .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 4-4. Areas and Large Energy Assets in New York MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2050 under the NCA Intermediate-High Scenario (1 foot SLR)...... 17 Exhibit 4-5. Areas and Large Energy Assets in New York MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2100 under the NCA Intermediate-High Scenario (4 feet SLR) ...... 18 Exhibit 4-6. Years Corresponding to SLR Increments in Miami MSA under Four NCA Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 4-7. Areas and Large Energy Assets in Miami MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2050 under the NCA Intermediate-High Scenario (1 foot SLR) ..................................... 20 Exhibit 4-8. Areas in Miami MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2100 under the NCA Intermediate-High Scenario (4 feet SLR) ................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 4-9. Port Everglades Petroleum Terminals Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2050 (1 foot SLR) (left) and Approximately 2100 (4 feet SLR) (right) under the NCA Intermediate-High Scenario ......................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 4-10. Years Corresponding to SLR Increments in Houston MSA under Four NCA Scenarios .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Exhibit 4-11. Areas and Large Energy Assets in Houston MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2050 under the NCA Intermediate-High Scenario (2 feet SLR) ...... 24 Exhibit 4-12. Areas and Large Energy Assets in Houston MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2100 under the Intermediate-High Scenario (5 feet SLR) ................ 25 ii Exhibit 4-13. Years Corresponding to SLR Increments in Los Angeles MSA under Four NCA Scenarios .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Exhibit 4-14. Areas and Large Energy Assets in Los Angeles MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2050 under the Intermediate-High Scenario (1 foot SLR) ................ 27 Exhibit 4-15. Areas and Large Energy Assets in Los Angeles MSA Inundated by SLR by Approximately 2100 under the Intermediate-High Scenario (4 feet SLR) ................ 28 iii For Further Information This report was prepared under the auspices of the Energy Infrastructure Modeling and Analysis (EIMA) division of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). OE’s vision is a U.S. energy delivery system that is reliable in the face of all hazards and resilient to disruptions, supports U.S. economic competitiveness, and minimizes impacts on the environment. EIMA’s mission is to ensure the reliability and resiliency of U.S. energy infrastructure and systems through robust analytical, modeling, and assessment capabilities to address energy issues of national importance. The Division is focused on conducting risk analyses and predictive modeling, and providing analytical products intended to inform decision makers at the public and private levels. Leonard Crook, Kevin Chamberlain, and Peter Schultz of ICF International provided analytical support in conducting the study under the direction of David Ortiz, Deputy Assistant Secretary for EIMA and Alice Lippert, Senior Technical Advisor to EIMA. Specific questions about this report may be directed to Alice Lippert, Senior Technical Advisor, EIMA Division ([email protected]). For more information regarding the EIMA division, please contact [email protected]. iv 1. Introduction Changes in the Earth’s climate are under way, including increasing temperatures, changes in precipitation, rising sea levels, and increases in the severity and frequency of severe weather events.1 Sea level rise (SLR) has the potential to directly impact coastal infrastructure and exacerbate other coastal hazards, including storm surge, coastal erosion, and degradation of natural protective sea barriers. The President’s Executive Order on Climate Preparedness (2013) directs federal agencies to support the development of climate resilient infrastructure and provide information, data, and tools to increase climate change preparation and resilience.2 The Administration’s Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), due in January 2015, will address energy infrastructure interdependencies and vulnerabilities to climate change.3 The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) undertook this pilot study for the four metropolitan areas of New York City, Houston, Miami, and Los Angeles—as defined by each city’s Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) boundary—to help establish a baseline understanding of the specific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Hazards Predictions Name: ______Teacher: ______PD:___ 2
    1 Unit 7: Earth’s Natural Hazards Lesson 1: Natural Hazards Lesson 2: Natural Hazards Predictions Name: ___________________ Teacher: ____________PD:___ 2 Unit 7: Lesson 1 Vocabulary 3 1 Natural Hazard: 2 Natural Disaster: 3 Volcano: 4 Volcanic Eruption: 5 Active Volcano: 6 Dormant Volcano: 7 Tsunami: 8 Tornado: 4 WHY IT MATTERS! Here are some questions to consider as you work through the unit. Can you answer any of the questions now? Revisit these questions at the end of the unit to apply what you discover. Questions: Notes: What types of natural hazards are likely where you live? How could the natural hazards you listed above cause damage or injury? What is a natural disaster? What types of monitoring and communication networks alert you to possible natural hazards? How could your home and school be affected by a natural hazard? How can the effects of a natural disaster be reduced? Unit Starter: Analyzing the Frequency of Wildfires 5 Analyzing the Frequency of Wildfires Choose the correct phrases to complete the statements below: Between 1970 and 1990, on average fewer than / more than 5 million acres burned in wildfires each year. Between 2000 and 2015, more than 5 million / 10 million acres burned in more than half of the years. Overall, the number of acres burned each year has been increasing / decreasing since 1970. 6 Lesson 1: Natural Hazards In 2015, this wildfire near Clear Lake, California, destroyed property and devastated the environment. Can You Explain it? In the 1700s, scientists in Italy discovered a city that had been buried for over 1,900 years.
    [Show full text]
  • HAZARD MITIGATION for NATURAL DISASTERS a Starter Guide for Water and Wastewater Utilities
    HAZARD MITIGATION FOR NATURAL DISASTERS A Starter Guide for Water and Wastewater Utilities Select a menu option below. New users should start with Overview Hazard Mitigation. Overview Join Local Mitigation Develop Mitigation Implement and Mitigation Case Study Hazard Mitigation Efforts Projects Fund Project Overview Overview - Hazard Mitigation Hazard Mitigation Join Local Hazards Posed by Natural Disasters Mitigation Efforts Water and wastewater utilities are vulnerable to a variety of hazards including natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, tornados, and Develop wildfires. For utilities, the impacts from these hazard events include Mitigation Projects damaged equipment, loss of power, disruptions to service, and revenue losses. Why Mitigate the Hazards? Implement and Fund Project It is more cost-effective to mitigate the risks from natural disasters than it is to repair damage after the disaster. Hazard mitigation refers to any action or project that reduces the effects of future disasters. Utilities can Mitigation implement mitigation projects to better withstand and rapidly recover Case Study from hazard events (e.g., flooding, earthquake), thereby increasing their overall resilience. Mitigation projects could include: • Elevation of electrical panels at a lift station to prevent flooding damage. • Replacement of piping with flexible joints to prevent earthquake damage. • Reinforcement of water towers to prevent tornado damage. Mitigation measures require financial investment by the utility; however, mitigation could prevent more costly future damage and improve the reliability of service during a disaster. Disclaimer: This Guide provides practical solutions to help water and wastewater utilities mitigate the effects of natural disasters. This Guide is not intended to serve as regulatory guidance. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey official U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning: a Community Guide
    Natural A step-by-step guide Hazards to help Massachusetts communities deal with Mitigation multiple natural Planning: hazards and A Community to minimize Guide future losses Prepared by With assistance from Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Natural Resources Conservation Service Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation Team January 2003 Mitt Romney, Governor · Peter C. Webber, DEM Commissioner · Stephen J. McGrail, MEMA Director P r e f a c e The original version of this workbook was disaster mitigation program, the Flood Mitigation published in 1997 and entitled, Flood Hazard Assistance (FMA) program, as well as other federal, Mitigation Planning: A Community Guide. Its state and private funding sources. purpose was to serve as a guide for the preparation Although the Commonwealth of of a streamlined, cost-efficient flood mitigation plan Massachusetts has had a statewide Hazard by local governments and citizen groups. Although Mitigation Plan in place since 1986, there has been the main purpose of this revised workbook has not little opportunity for community participation and changed from its original mission, this version has input in the planning process to minimize future been updated to encompass all natural hazards and disaster damages. A secondary goal of the to assist Massachusetts’ communities in complying workbook is to encourage the development of with the all hazards mitigation planning community-based plans and obtain local input into requirements under the federal Disaster Mitigation Massachusetts’ state mitigation planning efforts in Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). The parts of this order to improve the state’s capability to plan for workbook that correspond with the requirements of disasters and recover from damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Brief: Disaster Risk Governance Crisis Prevention and Recovery
    ISSUE BRIEF: DISASTER RISK GOVERNANCE CRISIS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY United Nations Development Programme “The earthquake in Haiti in January 2010 was about the same magnitude as the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, but the human toll was significantly higher. The loss of 185 lives in Christchurch was 185 too many. However, compared with the estimated 220,000 plus killed in Haiti in 2010, it becomes evident that it is not the magnitude of the natural hazard alone that determines its impact.” – Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator Poorly managed economic growth, combined with climate variability and change, is driving an overall rise in global disaster Around the world, it is the poor who face the greatest risk from risk for all countries. disasters. Those affected by poverty are more likely to live in drought and flood prone regions, and natural hazards are far Human development and disaster risk are interlinked. Rapid more likely to hurt poor communities than rich ones. economic and urban development can lead to growing Ninety-five percent of the 1.3 million people killed and the 4.4 concentrations of people in areas that are prone to natural billion affected by disasters in the last two decades lived in developing countries, and fewer than two per cent of global hazards. The risk increases if the exposure of people and assets deaths from cyclones occur in countries with high levels of to natural hazards grows faster than the ability of countries to development. improve their risk reduction capacity. DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND GOVERNANCE In the context of risk management, this requires that the general public are sufficiently informed of the natural hazard risks they are exposed to and able to take necessary The catastrophic impact of disasters is not ‘natural.’ Disasters are precautions.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Hazards As Components of Complex Systems: the Case of Japan
    Volume 13 | Issue 33 | Number 6 | Article ID 4359 | Aug 17, 2015 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volcanic Hazards as Components of Complex Systems: The Case of Japan Gregory Smits The past year or so has been a time of the earth’s crust suggested Mt. Fuji is more particularly vigorous volcanic activity in Japan, likely to erupt owing to effects from the 2011 or at least activity that has intruded into public Tōhoku earthquake.3 Well publicized by a press awareness. Perhaps most dramatic was the release on the eve of its publication, mass deadly eruption of Mt. Ontake on September media around the world have reported this 27, 2014, whose 57 fatalities were the first finding, along with speculation regarding volcano-related deaths in Japan since 1991. On possible connections between earthquakes and May 29, 2015, Mt. Shindake, off the southern volcanic eruptions. tip of Kyushu, erupted violently, forcing the evacuation of the island of Kuchinoerabu. That As of June 30, 2015, the Japan Meteorological same day, Sakurajima, located just north in Agency (JMA) designated ten volcanoes in or Kagoshima Bay, erupted more forcefully than near the main Japanese islands as warranting usual. Sakurajima has been erupting in some levels of warning ranging from Mt. Shindake’s fashion almost continuously since 1955, but Level 5 (“Evacuate”), to Level 2 (“Do not since 2006, its activity has become relatively approach the crater”) in seven cases. more vigorous. Indeed, a May 30 Asahi shinbun Sakurajima is at Level 3 (“Do not approach the article characterized these eruptions as “the volcano”), as is Hakoneyama, located near Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthquakes That Trigger Other Natural Hazards
    Chain Reaction: Earthquakes that Trigger Other Natural Hazards Compiled by Diane Noserale and Tania Larson volcanic eruptions. concave structure called a “caldera.” These structures are Scientists have known that movement of magma often found around the world. Yellowstone and Crater Lake fi re destroys much of a major city. The side triggers earthquakes, but they are discovering that this are two examples in the United States. Research shows of a mountain collapses and then explodes. relationship may also work in reverse. Scientists are look- that activity at calderas often occurred within months or A train of waves sweeps away coastal vil- ing at earthquakes that meet very specifi c criteria: a mag- even hours of large regional earthquakes, sometimes as lages over thousands of miles. All of these nitude of 6 or higher; a location on major fault zones a precursor to the earthquakes and sometimes as a result events are disasters that have started with near a volcano; and a later eruption of a nearby volcano. of them. Aor been triggered by an earthquake. Some of the triggers They are fi nding evidence that these earthquakes might were among the largest earthquakes ever recorded. But have triggered the eruptions. Landslides the disasters that followed were often so large that the In the early morning of Nov. 29, 1975, a magnitude- Heavy rain, wildfi res, volcanic eruptions and human earthquakes were overshadowed, and so, we hear about 7.2 earthquake struck the Big Island of Hawaii. Less than activity often work together to cause landslides. In hilly the eruption of Mount St.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Hazards - Internal and External Processes - Chen Yong
    NATURAL AND HUMAN INDUCED HAZARDS – Vol. I - Natural Hazards - Internal and External Processes - Chen Yong NATURAL HAZARDS-INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PROCESSES Chen Yong China Seismological Bureau, Fuxing Avenue, Beijing, China Keywords: Natural hazards, Natural catastrophes, Earth’s processes, Surface process, Internal process, Earthquakes, Floods, Windstorms, Volcanic eruption; Tsunamis, Landslides, Warning systems Contents 1. Earth’s processes 2. How big problem are natural hazards 3. Earthquakes 4. Floods 5. Windstorms 6. Volcanic Eruption 7. Conclusion Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary Natural hazards are among one of the major causes for concern on Earth. The economic losses caused by natural hazards are about 40 billion US dollars per year, or 100 million dollars a day. Worldwide, 100,000 souls perish each year from such cause. Natural processes (surface’s or internal) that become a hazard have highly variable causes and effects. In order to help mitigate the effects, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of the processesUNESCO involved and to suggest –wa ysEOLSS that preventative measures can be executed within the socio-economic framework of the area threatened. There were 755 natural hazard loss events in 1999. The most losses of life (98% of total) and damages of properties (93% of the total) came mainly from earthquakes, floods and windstorms. Generalized characteristicsSAMPLE of various natura lCHAPTERS hazards, i.e. the geographic distribution, magnitude- frequency relation etc., is given firstly in present topic, then, the detailed descriptions of several main natural hazards are followed. 1. Earth’s process The Earth is a dynamic, evolving system with complex interaction of internal and external processes.
    [Show full text]
  • How Good Do Natural Hazard Assessments Need to Be?
    AL SOCIET IC Y G O O F L A O M E E G R I E C H A T GROUNDWORK Furthering the Influence of Earth Science How good do natural hazard assessments need to be? Seth Stein, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern probabilities. The hazard is described by p(h), the occurrence of University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA, seth@earth events of a certain size, and Q(n) reflects the risk, which depends .northwestern.edu; and Jerome Stein*, Applied Mathematics, on the mitigation level n. Because the dates of future events are Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA unknown, L(h,n) is the expected average direct and indirect annual loss. In trying to mitigate natural hazards, society plays a high-stakes A sum of money S invested today at interest rate i will be worth game against nature. Often nature surprises us when an earth- S(1 + i)t at a future time t, so the present value of a sum S at a fu- quake, hurricane, or flood is bigger or has greater effects than ture time t is the inverse, S/(1 + i)t. Thus, we scale the future losses expected from detailed natural hazard assessments. In other to their present value using the sum over T years cases, nature outsmarts us, doing great damage despite expensive mitigation measures. (2) These difficulties are illustrated by the March 2011 earthquake for large T. For interest rate i = 0.05, DT = 15.4 for 30 years and off Japan’s Tohoku coast. The earthquake was much larger than 19.8 for 100 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Ashfall Preparedness Poster Series: a Collaborative Process For
    Wilson et al. Journal of Applied Volcanology 2014, 3:10 http://www.appliedvolc.com/content/3/1/10 RESEARCH Open Access Volcanic ashfall preparedness poster series: a collaborative process for reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure Thomas M Wilson1*, Carol Stewart1,2, Johnny B Wardman1, Grant Wilson1, David M Johnston1,2, Daniel Hill1, Samuel J Hampton1, Marlene Villemure1, Sara McBride2, Graham Leonard2,3, Michele Daly3, Natalia Deligne3 and Lisa Roberts4 Abstract Volcanic ashfall can be damaging and disruptive to critical infrastructure including electricity generation, transmission and distribution networks, drinking-water and wastewater treatment plants, roads, airports and communications networks. There is growing evidence that a range of preparedness and mitigation strategies can reduce ashfall impacts for critical infrastructure organisations. This paper describes a collaborative process used to create a suite of ten posters designed to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure organisations to volcanic ashfall hazards. Key features of this process were: 1) a partnership between critical infrastructure managers and other relevant government agencies with volcanic impact scientists, including extensive consultation and review phases; and 2) translation of volcanic impact research into practical management tools. Whilst these posters have been developed specifically for use in New Zealand, we propose that this development process has more widely applicable value for strengthening volcanic risk resilience in other settings. Keywords: Hazard; Risk; Tephra; Preparedness; Critical infrastructure; Airport; Electricity; Transmission; Distribution; Generation; Water supply; Wastewater; Buildings; Road; Transport; HVAC; Computer; Electronics; Risk communication Introduction the major regional centre of San Carlos de Bariloche, Volcanic ashfall can cause a range of societal impacts. population approximately 113,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic and Extensive Risk Arising from Volcanic Ash Impacts On
    1 Dynamic and Extensive Risk Arising from Volcanic Ash Impacts on Agriculture Dr Jeremy Phillips, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, UK Prof. Jenni Barclay, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK Prof. David Pyle, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, UK Dr Maria Teresa Armijos, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK Prof. Roger Few, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK Dr Anna Hicks, British Geological Survey, UK 2 Summary Volcanic Ash is an excellent archetype of an ‘extensive hazard’. Ash fall occurs frequently and intermittently during volcanic eruptions, and populations in close proximity to persistently-active volcanoes report ash impacts and distribution that have complex spatial patterns. This is reflected in high-resolution modelling of ash dispersion that integrates local atmospheric and topographic effects. We review three case study long-lasting eruptions in the Caribbean and Ecuador, to highlight the extensive characteristics of ash eruption, deposition, and impacts. Over the long term, attritional effects of volcanic ash create negative impacts on livelihood trajectories via loss of income and nutrition from agriculture, and damage to, and increased maintenance of, critical infrastructure. There are also benefits; communities report that over short time periods following eruptions, there is often increased agricultural productivity. Recognition of the extensive nature of volcanic ash impacts has direct implications for disaster risk reduction policy and practice. These include the need to: anticipate long-lasting costs of relief and potentially severe impacts on people’s wellbeing; plan flexibly to respond to high spatial and temporal variability in impacts; and to be cognisant of communities’ adaptations and actions to maintain livelihoods when undertaking external interventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Hazards—A National Threat
    USGS Science Helps Build Safer Communities Flood Hazards—A National Threat Presidential disaster declarations related to flooding in the United States and Puerto Rico Floods Can Happen Almost Anywhere In the late summer of 2005, the remarkable flooding brought by Hur- ricane Katrina, which caused more than $200 billion in losses, constituted the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. However, even in typical years, flood- ing causes billions of dollars in damage and threatens lives and property in every State. Natural processes, such as hurricanes, weather systems, and snowmelt, can cause floods. Failure of levees and dams and inadequate drainage in urban areas can also result in flooding. On average, floods kill about 140 people each year and cause $6 billion in property damage. Although loss of life to floods during the past half-century has declined, mostly Presidential disaster declarations related to flooding in the United States, shown by county: because of improved warning systems, Green areas represent one declaration; yellow areas represent two declarations; orange economic losses have continued to rise areas represent three declarations; red areas represent four or more declarations between due to increased urbanization and coastal June 1, 1965, and June 1, 2003. Map not to scale. Sources: FEMA, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., the development. National Atlas, and the USGS Science Helps Meet the Challenge Flood Impacts USGS Science Priorities Reduction of flood losses must be based on the best possible understanding of how and where
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities
    Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, SPM4 Coasts and Communities Coordinating Lead Authors: Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Bruce C. Glavovic (New Zealand/South Africa) Lead Authors: Jochen Hinkel (Germany), Roderik van de Wal (Netherlands), Alexandre K. Magnan (France), Amro Abd-Elgawad (Egypt), Rongshuo Cai (China), Miguel Cifuentes-Jara (Costa Rica), Robert M. DeConto (USA), Tuhin Ghosh (India), John Hay (Cook Islands), Federico Isla (Argentina), Ben Marzeion (Germany), Benoit Meyssignac (France), Zita Sebesvari (Hungary/Germany) Contributing Authors: Robbert Biesbroek (Netherlands), Maya K. Buchanan (USA), Ricardo Safra de Campos (UK), Gonéri Le Cozannet (France), Catia Domingues (Australia), Sönke Dangendorf (Germany), Petra Döll (Germany), Virginie K.E. Duvat (France), Tamsin Edwards (UK), Alexey Ekaykin (Russian Federation), Donald Forbes (Canada), James Ford (UK), Miguel D. Fortes (Philippines), Thomas Frederikse (Netherlands), Jean-Pierre Gattuso (France), Robert Kopp (USA), Erwin Lambert (Netherlands), Judy Lawrence (New Zealand), Andrew Mackintosh (New Zealand), Angélique Melet (France), Elizabeth McLeod (USA), Mark Merrifield (USA), Siddharth Narayan (US), Robert J. Nicholls (UK), Fabrice Renaud (UK), Jonathan Simm (UK), AJ Smit (South Africa), Catherine Sutherland (South Africa), Nguyen Minh Tu (Vietnam), Jon Woodruff (USA), Poh Poh Wong (Singapore), Siyuan Xian (USA) Review Editors: Ayako Abe-Ouchi (Japan), Kapil Gupta (India), Joy Pereira (Malaysia) Chapter Scientist: Maya K. Buchanan (USA) This chapter should be cited as: Oppenheimer, M., B.C. Glavovic , J. Hinkel, R. van de Wal, A.K. Magnan, A. Abd-Elgawad, R. Cai, M. Cifuentes-Jara, R.M. DeConto, T. Ghosh, J. Hay, F. Isla, B. Marzeion, B. Meyssignac, and Z. Sebesvari, 2019: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities.
    [Show full text]