Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise Part 1: Application to East Anglia��

Peter Stansby, Cui-Ping Kuang, Dominique Laurence and Brian Launder�� February 2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 86

Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise
Part 1: Application to East Anglia
Peter Stansby1, Cui-Ping Kuang1, Dominique Laurence2 and Brian Launder2

1 Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK. 2 Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Manufacturing Engineering, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 86


SUMMARY The effect of sea-level rise on nearshore wave climate in East Anglia is investigated using state-of-the-art commercial wave modelling (the TOMAWAC code). Artificially increasing the level of relatively nearshore banks, e.g. Scroby, is shown to reduce nearshore wave heights, suggesting that the dumping of dredged or other material on sandbanks would be a cost-effective means of coastal protection. Tidal modelling (using TELEMAC-2D) coupled with sediment transport modelling (SISYPHE) indicates that sandbanks are more likely to accrete where the water is shallow indicating a suitable first choice for dumping. The work is presented in three parts: Part 1 presents results and practical implications; Part 2 gives the theory, results, validation and limitations for practical tidal current modeling; and Part 3 gives the theory and some assessment of wave climate modeling.


1. INTRODUCTION While sandbanks are navigation hazards, they are beneficial as offshore dissipators of wave energy, protecting the coastline to some degree, e.g. MacDonald et al.1. They are highly varied in form and characteristics, some remaining moribund for hundreds of years while others change markedly in extreme storms, e.g. Dyer and Huntley2 . Here we consider the effect of sea-level rise due to climate change on wave climate near the shore and the influence of sandbank bathymetry. A basic analysis would consider storm wave propagation over an unchanged bathymetry with a uniformly increased depth. However bathymetry will change due to changing wave/wind/current/sediment/bed interaction and large-scale predictions, in time (years) as well as space (order 100km), require computer modelling. In addition boundary conditions for a coastal region are needed within the climate change scenario. While considerable progress in modelling has been made in the last decade, reliable quantitative predictions over large regions relate mainly to tidal flows and wave propagation in isolation. Modelling waves with wave-induced, as well as tidal, currents is becoming increasing possible, but over relatively small regions (order 1km), e.g. Svendsen et al.3.

In this paper we wish to consider whether sandbanks of increased height may ameliorate or even reverse the effect of sea-level rise on nearshore wave climate and hence coastal erosion. We consider the East Anglian coast which is particularly vulnerable and has already been the subject of several nearshore protection schemes. Dredged material is regularly dumped offshore in large quantities and over a period of years could be used to build up offshore banks. There are two obvious questions associated with any given coastal region. If a sandbank is increased in height, to what extent if any will nearshore wave heights be reduced? Secondly, if dredged material is dumped on a sandbank, will it remain on the bank or be washed away? We will see that the first question may be answered reasonably but the second cannot in a complete way, resolving all physical interactions. To test our hypothesis we break the latter into components. We know, for example, that tidal motion may cause simple, isolated sandbanks to accrete due to


Coriolis effects (Roos and Hulscher4). They may also accrete due to wake formation, e.g. of the kind shown in Lloyd, Stansby and Chen5, entraining and depositing sediment, although this has received little attention. We also know that wave breaking, which inevitably occurs during storms, and its associated turbulence strongly agitates sediment into suspension to be then transported by tidal and wave-induced currents. Resulting morphological changes on a plane beach and around breakwaters are now reasonably predicted, e.g. Zyserman and Johnson6 , but predictions in a 2-D horizontal plane of large extent are not yet reliable, e.g. Williams et al.7. We thus investigate whether sandbanks, or parts thereof, which are beneficial for coastal protection, accrete due to tidal currents on the basis that these are the most likely accretion mechanism and they are occurring continuously. Storm waves will have an uncertain influence, which, at present, can best be determined from experience, with past experience being a useful indicator of what may happen in the future. On the other hand, if tidal motion is causing a bank to erode it seems likely that further dumped sediment will also erode. It is well known that even modelling sediment transport and associated morphological changes due to currents involves much empiricism and is far from precise. Here we only use such modelling to investigate changes qualitatively rather than quantitatively. In the light of such modelling uncertainty one may question whether such a large-scale experiment would be worthwhile and we do not attempt to answer that, apart from pointing out that dredged material is dumped offshore in any case and, if effective, such a scheme would be a most cost-effective aid to coastal defence. It has also been suggested that, as rising sea level will allow higher waves offshore, the banks are more likely to erode which in turn will allow higher waves inshore than would occur due to sea-level rise alone. Wave-induced sediment-transport effects are generally proportional to wave height squared. The situation is thus highly nonlinear with offshore/inshore/alongshore interactions almost certainly accelerating change. In this context it seems particularly appropriate to investigate whether sandbank control might be part of an overall plan for coastal protection.

There are several choices of commercial code for such applications. We have chosen the finite-element based TELEMAC system8 for ease of application to different geometries,


due to its unstructured mesh (available through HR Wallingford in the UK). For tidal currents the depth-averaged code TELEMAC-2D is used. The module SISYPHE is used for sediment transport. For wave modelling without diffraction TOMAWAC is used, and with diffraction ARTEMIS is used. The mesh generator MATISSE is common to all. There are practical issues associated for large-scale modelling associated with tidal flow and wave climate prediction and the work is thus divided into three parts. This paper (Part 1) gives the results of the modelling as applied to the coastal region off East Anglia. This will be of most interest to non-specialists in hydrodynamic modelling. Part 2 will describe the numerical scheme for tidal currents, its boundary conditions from a larger scale continental shelf model, CS3, of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) and its calibration against measured tidal elevation at Lowestoft. Formulations for sediment transport and bed evolution will also be described. Part 3 will describe wave modelling. Large-scale modelling without diffraction is widely used. However the importance of diffraction is tested through comparisons with small-scale experimental data of wave action over idealised shoals. It will be shown that directional waves with broad spreading, as distinct from narrow spreading, show little influence of diffraction. For large-scale wave modelling off the East Anglian coast, it is further shown that very nearshore, as distinct from offshore, wave climate is little influenced by whether directional spreading is broad or narrow, suggesting that use of broad directional spread waves without diffraction is a useful practical approach. 2. WAVE CLIMATE TOMAWAC is a third generation spectral code that allows an input directional spectrum to develop and evolve in space and time. The piecewise ray method chosen for wave propagation allows the use of large time-steps keeping the computation time at a very acceptable level for practical applications. It includes the shallow-water effects of bottom friction and depth-induced breaking (but not diffraction).



2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fig.1. The East Anglian coastal region with CS3 model grid. The red line shows the outer boundary of modelled region. (The numbers are relevant to Part 2.)

Offshore db k


Nearshore sandbank

Fig.2. Bathymetry of the modelled region, relative to LAT at Lowestoft.


Fig.3. Computational mesh of coastal region. 2.1. Region Modelled The computational domain is enclosed using red lines shown in Fig.1, which ranges from 52006’N to 530N with length about 100 km in the latitudinal direction and from 1020’E to2010’E with length about 60 km in the longitudinal direction. The bathymetry in this region is shown in Fig.2, which was provided by the company METOC Ltd. in digital form. The elevations are in metres referred to LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide) at Lowestoft. In the numerical model, the Cartesian coordination system has positive x and y axes pointing to east and north respectively; the origin (0,0) is at point (520N, 10E). A computational mesh (shown in Fig.3) was generated by the MATISSE code, which was also used for the current and bed load models. Fine grids were formed near the coastline


and three sandbanks with coarser grids further offshore. The mesh includes 8640 nodes and 16865 triangle elements with the mesh length varying from 238-1523 m. Tests with a uniform mesh with grid length around 1000m produced almost identical wave heights indicating that the results presented are almost mesh insensitive.

2.2. Incident Wave Conditions A wave spectrum is imposed as the incident wave condition. Since this is a comparative study, realistic, but not measured, wave conditions are input on the boundary of the domain. The fetch across the North Sea in an easterly direction to the east boundary of computational domain is about 200 km. A high wind speed of 20 m/s was assumed, which would cause a fetch-limited, deep-water wave with a significant height of about 8m and a period of 10s (Shore Protection Manual9). This is used as the reference wave condition with three directions: NE, E and SE. A directional spectrum of JONSWAP type (Hasselmann et al.10) was assumed with average peak factor 3.3 and direction spread parameter 20 (defined in Part 3). Frequencies and directions were divided into 17 and 36 elements respectively and the frequency was varied from 0.04 Hz to 0.25 Hz. This is standard practice to avoid numerical problems caused by very low and high frequencies. The boundary wave propagation direction and other boundary conditions would be given in each computational case. With a time step of 20s, 360 time steps were sufficient to reach a steady state in a computational time of about 2 hours. In the computational domain, the water level was typical of a spring tide with an average level of 4.0 m above LAT, as wave heights will be least restricted by depth-limited breaking for high water levels. To start the computation an initial significant wave height was set at 0.5 m with the same spectrum used at the incident boundaries. The bottom friction dissipation and depth-induced breaking dissipation were included. The Battjes and Janssen11 model was chosen for wave breaking and method for bottom friction was the expression obtained during the JONSWAP campaign (Hasselmann et al10) and taken up by Bouws and Komen12. The bottom friction coefficient is taken as 0.038 m2/s3 (Hasselmann et al.10) and in accordance with the standard value being used in the model WAM-Cycle 4. The incident wave directions and the conditions for wind and tidal currents will be given for each individual case.


2.3. Computed Results (a) (b)

Fig.16. Wave vectors and wave height contours at the steady state while wave from east

Fig.4. Wave direction vectors and height contours with waves from the East.


Fig.5. Comparison of computed wave heights along a line with marked circles, shown in Fig.2, with waves from the East, North-East and South-East. 2.3.1. Waves from three directions with present bathymetry Three different wave directions, NE, E and SE were computed. With waves from the east, incident wave conditions were imposed on the east boundary and free boundary conditions at the north and south. With waves from the north-east, incident wave conditions were imposed at the east and north boundaries with free boundary conditions at the south. With waves from the south-east, incident wave conditions were imposed at the east and south boundaries with free boundary conditions at the north. With waves

from the east, the computed wave vectors and wave height contours at the steady state are shown in Fig.4. The wave height decreases as waves propagate towards the coastline, with especially small wave heights in the lee of the Scroby sandbank. Fig.5 shows a comparison of computed wave heights along a line marked by circles in Fig.2, for wave directions: E, NE and SE. This line is 2km from the shoreline and the average water depth is about 10 m. The Figure 5 shows that the highest wave heights are in the interior of the domain for the E direction. For the NE direction there are waves of similar height at the north end and for the SE direction at the south end. Both are close to the incident imposed boundary wave heights and will be unduly influenced by them. The E direction gives the highest waves in the interior of the domain and this direction is used for further investigations of wind, currents, sea level rise and sandbank bathymetry.


Fig.6. Comparison of computed wave heights, along a line with marked circles, shown in Fig.2, with waves from the East, for existing sea level (E) and for an assumed sea-level rise (SLR) of 1 m. 2.3.2. Waves from east with present bathymetry and a sea level rise of 1 m A sea-level rise of between 16 cm and 71 cm has been estimated for 2050 in UPCIP02 Scenarios (United Kingdom Climate Impact Programme)13. For this comparative study a rise of 1m was assumed as a representative value for the end of this century. With other conditions identical, Fig.6 shows a comparison of computed wave heights along a line marked by circles in Fig.2. The increase in wave height will be between 0.04m and 0.40 m with an average value of 0.30 m. Increases as high as 30% are clearly significant for coastal erosion where some processes are proportional to wave height squared.


Fig.7. Comparison of computed wave height profiles, along a line with marked circles, shown in Fig.2, with waves from the East, with no imposed wind speed (E) and imposed wind speeds of 10 and 20 m/s from the East (WFE). 2.3.3. Waves from east with present bathymetry and a wind speed of 10 m/s from the east Wind speeds of 10 and 20 m/s from the east were considered as a source term for wave energy, within the computational domain. Fig.7 is the comparison of computed wave heights along a line marked by circles in Fig.2. It can be seen that the impact of local wind is negligible when the wind speed is 10 m/s, but when the wind speed reaches 20 m/s, there are higher wave heights in the north and south.




Fig.8 Wave height contours with waves from the East combined with maximum ebb (a) and flood (b) currents (assumed steady).


Fig.9 Comparison of computed wave heights along a line with marked circles, shown in Fig.2, with waves from the East combined with maximum ebb and flood currents (assumed steady). 2.3.4. Waves from east with present bathymetry and imposed tidal currents The computed maximum ebb (North flowing) and flood (South flowing) current fields, corresponding with times of 3:00 and 9:00 on 2nd August 2000 (see part 2), were used to consider the impact of tidal currents on the wave field. Fig.8 shows the computed wave height contours at steady state. Fig.9 shows the comparison of computed wave heights along a line marked by circles in Fig.2. It can be seen that there are higher wave heights in the north under the ebb current, and in the south under the flood current. (a)

(b) 15

Fig.10. Comparison of computed wave heights with waves from the East combined with different sandbank growth (SBG): a) along a line with marked crosses, as shown in Fig.2; b) along a line with marked circles, as shown in Fig.2. 2.3.5. Waves from east with sandbanks of increased height Three sandbanks are considered in the coastal region (as shown in Fig.2). They include an offshore sandbank (north), an intermediate sandbank (Scroby) and a nearshore sandbank to the south of Scroby sandbank. To study whether sandbanks have a protective effect at coasts, we artificially increase their heights. The overall shape of sandbanks is maintained. The maximum level increase for each sandbank was 1, 2, 3 and 4 m at the highest point on each sandbank. The level was increased linearly between a level of –5m LAT and this highest point. The sediment volumes needed to increase sandbank heights by 1, 2, 3 and 4 m respectively are shown in Table 1, for each sandbank and in total. The Scroby sandbank needs the largest volume of sediment. The computed wave fields are very similar to those for the present bathymetry, except in the lee of the sandbanks where wave heights are decreased. Fig.10(a) shows the computed wave heights along a line marked by crosses in Fig.2 at 200 m from the coastline, with a water depth of about 5 m, and Fig.10(b) along the line marked by circles, with a water depth of about 10m. The offshore sandbank does not protect the coastline. The Scroby and the nearshore bank do protect the coastline in their lee. The region of protection locations depends on the wave propagation directions and sandbank bathymetry. The maximum wave height at 2km from the shoreline is decreased by around 0.35m and 0.26m in the lee of the nearshore


and Scroby sandbanks respectively, with increased sand levels of 1m at their peaks. The maximum wave heights at 200m from the shoreline decrease by around 0.16m and 0.13 m in the lee of the nearshore and Scroby sandbanks respectively, for the same change in sand level.

Fig.11. The computed sediment volume and average level evolution over the –5m level on the Scroby sandbank for existing (PEB) and different sediment sandbank growth (SSBG)


Table 1 Sediment volumes needed to artificially increase sandbank levels (×106 m3) Sandbanks growth height (m) Cases 1 Nearshore sandbank Scroby sandbank Offshore sandbank Total 4.64 12.12 3.43 20.19 2 9.28 24.24 6.86 40.38 3 13.92 36.36 10.29 60.57 4 18.56 48.48 13.72 80.76

3. MORPHOLOGICAL STUDY The same mesh was used to compute the morphological changes, using TELEMAC-2D for tidal flows and SISYPHE for sediment transport. The tests show the computed overall bed evolutions are almost the same for the uniform mesh with a cell size of around 1000m as for the finer mesh generally used.

3.1. Boundary Conditions A period of 213 hours, starting at 22.00 on 1st August 2000, was used for current modelling (see Part 2), and sediment transport modelling was started 6 hours later, with a period of 200 hours, including 8 spring tides and 8 neap tides. The computed water depth and velocity at each grid node were stored at hourly intervals in the result file from TELEMAC-2D (which used a time step of 20 s). These data were used to drive sediment motion, with a solid boundary assumed at the coastline and zero normal gradient of sediment flux (free boundary conditions) at the other boundaries. The modelled region was thus treated as being independent of adjoining coastal regions and thus does not take account of larger scale sediment motion. The current modelling is thus uncoupled from the sediment transport modelling. Based on reports of Evans et al.14 and Whitehouse15, the bed sediment changes from a sand to a sand gravel, with an average sand diameter 0.4 mm on the Scroby sandbank. A mean sediment diameter of 0.4mm was chosen as a representative value, which was considered adequate for a comparative study. The densities of water and sediment are assumed to be 1000 and 2665 kg/m3 respectively. The Strickler coefficient to calculate the bed shear stress is 50 m 3 s −1 , equivalent to Manning’s


coefficient 0.02 m 3 s used in the current modelling. The latter enables accurate predictions of tidal elevations at Lowestoft. Smaller time steps than one hour were also tested and showed no effect on the results for sediment transport.


Fig.12. The computed sediment volume and average level evolution over the part of Scroby sandbank in the range x: 53000-54000, y: 65000-71500 (black rectangle in Fig.2), for existing (PEB) and different sediment sandbank growth (SSBG). 3.2. Computed Results The Engelund-Hansen formula was chosen for sediment transport, which includes bed load and suspended load. Based on the computed bed evolution for the present bathymetry presented in Part 2, the greatest changes in bed evolution appear around the Scroby sandbank. The effect on morphological change of increasing the height of the 19

Scroby sandbank alone was investigated, to relate to the wave climate study. As before, the maximum increase in level of the Scroby sandbank was 1, 2, 3 and 4 m at the highest point, with the level increased linearly from the –5m LAT to this point. The sediment volumes needed to increase the Scroby sandbank levels were shown in Table 1. A very fine mesh with 72 nodes and 118 triangle cells covers the Scroby sandbank. The currents for simulation of morphological changes are recomputed for each modified bathymetry. Figure 11 shows the change in computed sediment volume and average evolution above the –5m level (LAT) on the Scroby sandbank, for the existing and raised levels. It can be seen the change in average level evolution and corresponding volume are negative. This means that the net sediment dumped over the entire area will be gradually washed away due to tidal currents. But Fig.12 shows the computed changes in sediment volume and average level over the top part of the Scroby sandbank in the range x: 53000-54000m, y: 65000-71500m are always positive. This indicates that if the sediment is dumped on this shallow water region of the Scroby sandbank, it is unlikely to be eroded due to tidal action. It is perhaps surprising that the sandbank is depleting overall by about 0.8m per year when the condition is expected to be stable. This could be because wave action is in fact causing accretion to counterbalance tidal effects or could be because there are local wake effects which are causing accretion but are not resolved adequately by the model, as discussed in Part 2. However it has been stressed that this is a comparative study and these results are only intended to indicate most appropriate regions for initial dumping. If such a scheme were to be pursued, there should be periodic monitoring of bathymetry, coupled with modelling, to establish most appropriate areas for dumping of dredged material.

4. CONCLUSIONS i) Sea-level rise on the existing bathymetry off East Anglia will cause increased wave heights in nearshore coastal regions; ii) Nearshore sandbank growth, e.g. on Scroby, can significantly protect coastlines in their lee, while offshore sandbanks have little effect;



The protection given by sandbanks depends on their distance from the shore, their orientation and bed level, and the wave direction. As might be expected, higher levels give greater protection;


Building up sandbank levels with dredged, or other, material could be a costeffective means of coastal protection. This could be particularly valuable as coastal erosion is likely to have a strongly nonlinear dependence on rising sea level;


Tidal/sediment modelling suggests that zones of accretion are most likely where the water depth is shallowest. If dredged material were available to increase sandbank levels, dumping in shallow water over sandbanks would be a most appropriate starting point;


These results are based on state-of-the-art commercial codes, which are considered useful for comparative purposes. Wave modelling is thought to be quite reliable, as is large-scale tidal modelling. However local wake effects, which may be significant in morphological prediction, are poorly represented. Also coupled wave/current interactions have influences which are not considered here, and at present can only be modelled at relatively small spatial and time scales;


In the application of such a scheme, as there are uncertainties in modelling, periodic monitoring of the bathymetry should be undertaken in parallel.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work (Tyndall project IT 1.37) is part of a larger project ‘towards an integrated regional coastal simulator for the impact of sea-level rise in East Anglia’ and has been funded through the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.


1. Macdonald,N.J., Pan,S., Nicholoson,J. and O’Connor,B.A. 1997 Numerical modelling of short to medium term offshore sand bank evolution, Zbl. Geol. Palaont. Tell I, H 11/12, 10931105.


2. Dyer,K.R. and Huntley,D.A. 1999 The origin, classification and modelling of sand banks and ridges, Continental Shelf Research, 19, 1285-1330.

3. Svendsen,Ib A., Haas, K. and Zhao, Q. 2002 Quasi-3-D nearshore circulation model SHORECIRC, Version 2.0, Center for Applied Ocean Research, University of Delaware. 4. Roos,P.C. and Hulscher,S.J.M.H. 2002 Finite amplitude sandbanks, 28th ICCE, Cardiff.

5. Lloyd, P.M., Stansby,P.K. and Chen, D. 2001 Wake formation around islands in oscillatory laminar shallow-water flows. Part 1. Experimental investigation, J. Fluid Mech., 429, 217-238.

6. Zyserman, J.A. and Johnson, H.K. 2002 Modelling morphological processes in the vicinity of shore-parallel breakwaters, Coastal Engrg., 25, 261-284.

7. Williams, J.J., MacDonald, N.J., O’Connor,B.A. and Pan.S 2000 Offshore sand bank dynamics, J. Marine Systems, 24, 153-173.

8. TELEMAC User Manual 2002. Fluvial Hydraulics Group, Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique, Direction des Etudes et Recherches, Electricité de France, Chatou, France. 9. Shore Protection Manual 1984, 4th edition, US Army Corps Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Gov. Printing Office, Washington DC.

10. Hasselmann, K., Barnet, T.P., Bouws, E., Carlson H., Cartwright, D.E., Enke, K., Ewing, J.A., Gienapp H., Hasselmann, D.E., Kruseman P., Meerburg, A., Muller, P., Olbers, D.J., Richter, K., Sell W., Walden H. 1973. measurements of wind-wave growth


and swell decay during the joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP). Deutschen Hydrographischen Zeitschrift, Reihe A (80), N012.

11. Battjes, J.A. and Janssen, J.P.F.M. 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random waves. Proceedings of the 16th Int. Conf. On Coastal Eng. (I.C.C.E.), Vol.1, 649660. Hamburg.

12. Bouwse, E. and Komen, G.J. 1983. On the balance between growth and dissipation in an extreme depth-limited wind-sea in the southern North Sea. Journal of Physical Oceanography. Vol. 13. 1653-1658.

13. UKCIP02 Briefing Report, April 2002. Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom.

14. Evans C.D.R., Crosby A., Wingfield R.T.R., James, J.W.C., Slater M.P. and Newsham R. Inshore seabed characterization of selected sectors of the English coast. British Geological Survey, 1998, Technical Report WB/98/45.

15. Whitehouse R.J.S. Understanding the behavior and engineering significance of offshore and coastal sand banks. HR Wallingford, 2001, Report SR 512


The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia UMIST Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton University of Cambridge Centre for Ecology and Hydrology SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex) Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University) Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site ( or contact: Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3900; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email:

Tyndall Working Papers are available online at Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-byCountry Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2. Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper 3. Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001). The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8. Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9. Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10. Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11. Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). Technological Change, Industry Structure and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 13. Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of Integrated Assessment: An Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14. Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16. Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17. Watson, J. (2002). The development of large technical systems: implications for hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19. Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21. Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22. Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23. Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24 Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of Network Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25 Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). Country level risk measures of climate-related natural disasters and implications for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Building resilience to climate change through adaptive management of natural resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27

Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28 Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A MultiCriteria Assessment Framework for CarbonMitigation Projects: Putting “development” in the centre of decision-making, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29 Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilotphase interactive integrated assessment process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31 Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System: Investigation of the impact of network faults on the stability of large offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32 Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33 Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 34 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. (2003). Report to the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation lessons learned from responding to tropical cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35 Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. (2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36 Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37 Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39

Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 40 Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41 Kim, J. A. (2003), Sustainable Development and the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42 Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003), Innovation and Threshold Effects in Technology Responses to Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43 Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44 Purdy, R. and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological carbon sequestration: critical legal issues, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45 Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 46 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47 Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic structure under technological development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48 Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our electricity networks to promote decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49 Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. & Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50 Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. & Ekins, P. (2004) Hysteresis and energy demand: the Announcement Effects and the effects of the UK climate change levy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 51 Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex post evaluations of CO2 –Based Taxes: A Survey, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 52

Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. (2004) The Announcement Effect and environmental taxation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53 Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation, Part 1: A framing of the East of England, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54 Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Hulme, M. and New, M. (2004) A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 55 Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56 Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S (2004) The Public Perceptions of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 57 Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social Simulation of The Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58 Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004) Modelling Innovation and Threshold Effects In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 59 Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2004) Scaling adaptation: climate change response and coastal management in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 60 Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Sahel: Long term perspectives and future prospects, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61 Barker, T. (2004) The transition to sustainability: a comparison of economics approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62 Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, S. (2004) Floods, health and climate change: a strategic review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63 Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 64

Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L. (2004) The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 65 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I., O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping actors involved in climate change policy networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 66 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan, T., (2005) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation: Part 2: Scenario creation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 67 Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The formation of belief in climate change in business organisations: a dynamic simulation model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 68 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005) Natural hazards and climate change: what knowledge is transferable?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 69 Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a Major Contribution to UK Energy Supply?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 70 Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005) Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to low-income communities, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 71 Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S., Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005) Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 72 Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process simulator scoping study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 73 Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) How do the costs of adaptation affect optimal mitigation when there is uncertainty, irreversibility and learning?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 74 Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005) Beyond probability: new methods for representing uncertainty in projections of future climate, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 75

Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political uncertainty in the Danish renewable energy market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 76 Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R and Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 77 Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and competition in the non-fossil fuel obligation market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 78 Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) Can adaptation and mitigation be complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 79 Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B., Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R., (2005) A framework for assessing the political economy of post-2012 global climate regime, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 80 Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of energy service contracts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 81 Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An analysis of a post-Kyoto climate policy model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 82 Williamson, M. Lenton, T. Shepherd, J. and Edwards, N. (2006) An efficient numerical terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth system modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper 83 Kevin Anderson, Alice Bows and Paul Upham (2006) Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: contradictions with climate policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 84 Michelle Bentham, (2006) An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study Tyndall Centre Working Paper 85 Peter Stansby, Cui-Ping Kuang, Dominique Laurence and Brian Launder, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sealevel rise - Part 1: Application to East Anglia Tyndall Centre Working Paper 86

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful