50

Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment

Methodologies for Integrated Coastal Zone
Management: an Approach from South Australia
N. HARVEY, B. CLOUSTON AND P. CARVALHO

The global concern about human-induced climatic change and its

potential effect on sea-level has dominated the debate on coastal
vulnerability, particularly since a common assessment methodology was
developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1991.
There have been numerous attempts to use or adapt this methodology but
the focus has remained on sea-level rise as the single most important
issue for coastal vulnerability. This paper presents a revised and more
holistic coastal vulnerability assessment methodology which incorpo-
rates spatial and temporal scales relevant to the predicted impacts of
climatic change and current human-induced hazards. Three studies in
contrasting coastal environments of South Australia demonstrate that
there are significant regional variations in sea-level response, human-
induced hazards and local planning issues and that these may present a
greater immediate threat than the possibility of sea-level rise.

International approaches to coastal vulnerability Subgroup attempted to develop methods of

assessment have largely been driven by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) through its Coastal Zone Management
Subgroup. In an effort to assess the implications
and costs of human-induced climatic change on
coastal systems, the Coastal Zone Management
Associate Professor Nick Harvey is Head of the Department
of Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University
of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia. Beth
Clouston is a Postgraduate Student in the School of
Australian Environmental Studies, Griffith University,
Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia. Patricia Carvalho is a
Postgraduate Student in the Department of Geographical and
Environmental Studies, The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia.
vulnerability assessment (IPCC, 1992). In
1991, a ‘common methodology’ was developed
following a questionnaire which had been sent
to all coastal nations (IPCC, 1994).
Vulnerability was defined as ‘. . . a nation’s
ability to cope with the consequences of an
acceleration in sea level rise and other coastal
impacts of global climate change’ (IPCC, 1992,
11). The concept of vulnerability includes the
susceptibility of a coastal area to the physical
changes produced by climatic change, but more
importantly the impact that these changes may
have on socio-economic and ecological systems.
Carter et al. (1994, 3) included socio-economic
factors in their definition of vulnerability: ‘. . .

Australian Geographical Studies • March 1999 • 37(1):50-69

Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment 51

vulnerability is the degree to which an exposure
unit is disrupted or adversely affected as a result
of climatic effects. Both socio-economic and
physical factors are important in determining
vulnerability.’
The focus of the ‘common methodology’ was
on obtaining monetary valuations of vulnerable
areas so that a cost-benefit test could be applied
to assess the best response option. The generally
accepted range of options includes protection of
the coast by defence works, accommodation of
changes, retreating from vulnerable areas, or
doing nothing (IPCC, 1992). The ‘common
methodology’ considered impacts on socio-
economic developments, impacts on natural
coastal systems and implications of possible
response strategies for adaptation. The scenarios
to be considered were the present or reference
situation and a 30 cm to 1 m sea-level rise by
2100, which were the high and low scenarios of
the IPCC predictions in 1990.
Seven steps were suggested for undertaking
the assessments (IPCC, 1991). These are listed
in Table I. The results of the assessment were
elaborated in a number of tables to produce
vulnerability classes of low, medium, high and
critical, based on relative or absolute quantities.
A vulnerability profile was then produced using
a combination of the scores (IPCC, 1991). The
aim of the assessment necessitated that a
qualitative approach be taken. A detailed
historical background to the ‘common
methodology’ can be found in Kay et al. (1996).
The IPCC Coastal Zone Management
Subgroup also recognised that coastal zone
management planning is a pre-requisite for
sea-level rise mitigation policies and thus
recommended that all coastal nations implement
integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) by
the year 2000. The concept was strengthened at
the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) in 1992, which
resulted in the Framework Convention on
Climate Change and Agenda 21. Article 4 of
the Climate Change Convention states, among
other things, that all signatories shall develop
and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans
for coastal zone management (United Nations,
1992).
While the Climate Change Convention is
legally binding for all signatories, Agenda 21 is
not. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 is devoted to the
‘protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas,
including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and
coastal areas and the protection, rational use and
development of their living resources’(UNCED,
1993, 147), and requires new approaches to
marine and coastal management that are
precautionary and fully integrated. Thus, it
would seem that the aims and objectives of
vulnerability assessment should be incorporated
into those of ICZM. This would then be
reflected in the chosen assessment procedure.
Following these international initiatives, a
World Coast Conference held in 1993 provided
an opportunity for nations to exchange
information in assessing coastal vulnerability
to climate change by reviewing the 46 case
studies which had been completed using the
‘common methodology’ and to examine ways of
using this information to develop coastal zone
management plans as required by the Climate
Change Convention and Agenda 21. The
definition of vulnerability for the purposes of
the conference was broadened to include all
three agents of coastal change: demand-driven

Table I The IPCC Common Methodology (Source: IPCC, 1991).

Stage 1 Delineate case study area, and specify accelerated sea-level rise and climatic change conditions.
Stage 2 Produce inventory of study area characteristics.
Stage 3 Identify relevant development factors.
Stage 4 Assess physical changes and natural system responses.
Stage 5 Formulate response strategies, identifying potential costs and benefits.
Stage 6 Assess the vulnerability profile and interpret the results.
Stage 7 Identify future needs and develop a plan of action.

ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999

52
change, natural change and climatic change
(IPCC, 1994). The link between the
vulnerability case studies and ICZM was
considered to be that vulnerability assessments
provided a potential trigger and a preparatory
study phase, with the results being integrated
into the analysis for ICZM. However, of the 46
case studies completed by 1993, only 18 country
case studies contained enough information to
estimate a vulnerability profile using the
vulnerability classification of five impact
categories with a 1 m sea-level rise scenario.
Only four countries, the Marshall Islands,
Poland, Egypt and the Netherlands were able
to complete all steps fully (IPCC, 1994).
From the assessments that had been
completed it was apparent ‘. . . that global sea
level rise is often not the most critical issue,
particularly in the most vulnerable areas where
long-term climate change will ultimately
interact with or exacerbate existing problems
and hazards’ (IPCC, 1994, Appendix 1, 10). The
conference emphasised the urgent need to
accelerate the development of coastal zone
management plans to take account of the long-
term impacts of global climatic change (IPCC,
1994). The ‘common methodology’ received
criticism at the World Coast Conference and it
was noted that if coastal vulnerability
assessment were to support ICZM it would
need revision and expansion. A similar
conclusion was reached by the international
scientific program investigating Land-Ocean
Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ). The
LOICZ Implementation Plan contains a specific
long-term objective for ‘. . . improved method-
ologies for vulnerability assessment at the
regional and global scales’ (Pernetta and
Milliman, 1995, 119).
A number of IPCC eastern hemisphere
vulnerability assessment studies encountered
technical difficulties due to a lack of data on
basic coastal topography and a lack of
operational technical capacity for describing
the complicated non-linear geomorphological
and ecological impacts of climatic change. The
spatial distribution of relative sea-level rise and
Australian Geographical Studies
other coastal implications were ignored due to a
lack of regional climate scenarios, as were the
other potential impacts of climatic change such
as extreme events (IPCC, 1993). These studies
found that the ‘common methodology’ was
deficient in assessing a wide range of technical,
institutional, economic and cultural elements
present in different localities. The studies
concluded that more attention should be paid to
broader socio-economic needs, including
traditional aesthetic and cultural values, such as
those of subsistence economies and traditional
land tenure systems. They also identified a need
to incorporate a bottom-up approach which is
more consistent with coastal zone management
(IPCC, 1993). A further criticism was that the
concept of vulnerability did not take into account
the resilience of coastal systems to various
stresses. It was argued that areas with greater
diversity and flexibility will be more resilient,
whether these occur by natural or managerial
adaptation (IPCC, 1993). In this context
resilience can be defined as ‘. . . a measure of
the rate of recovery from a stressful experience,
reflecting the capacity to absorb and recover
from the occurrence of a hazardous event.’
(Smith, 1996, 25).
In the IPCC Climate Change 1995 report,
quantitative results from the ‘common
methodology’, applied to 23 country case
studies, were presented (IPCC, 1996, 308),
although the limitations of these results and
difficulties with their interpretation were noted.
The report also commented on problems and
deficiencies of the ‘common methodology’ and
the need to integrate vulnerability assessments
into coastal zone management. Most recently,
the IPCC (1998) highlighted the vulnerability of
small island states to climatic change but
stressed the need to consider other factors which
contribute to their overall vulnerability. Hence
the need for a more integrated approach.
Australian responses to coastal vulnerability
assessment
In Australia, the ‘common methodology’ was
tested through a case study of Geographe Bay,
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment 53

Table II The Kay and Waterman methodology (Source: Kay and Waterman, 1993).
Stage 1 Delineation of a climatic change and sea-level rise impact zone.
Stage 2 Analysis of the vulnerable and resilient components of the systems within the zone.
Stage 3 Analysis of the links between the systems within the impact zone and the systems within the
connected areas.
Stage 4 Formulation of management strategies within the impact zone and the connected areas.

Western Australia (Kay et al., 1992) and the
Cocos Islands (Woodroffe and McLean, 1993).
The Australian government also funded a
preliminary study of Kiribati. This led to several
of the above criticisms of the ‘common
methodology’ at the World Coast Conference
from the Australian authors. The ‘common
methodology’ was not seen as appropriate to
the Australian situation, as the economic-based
assessment technique is not consistent with the
planning approaches used. The method was
viewed as being too general to isolate the
preferred responses. The failure to include time
dependencies and social and cultural factors was
also a concern (Kay and Waterman, 1993). As a
result of these criticisms an alternative
methodology was proposed by Kay and
Waterman (1993) which is described in Table II.
Stage 1 focusses on the physical and
biological conditions of the study area and
delineates those areas of potential future sea-
level coastal hazard. Maps are the preferred
method of illustrating the various hazards such
as flooding or erosion.
Stage 2 includes some notion of the
susceptibility to stress, shock and damage caused
by climatic change. However, susceptibility is
conditioned by the resilience of the natural
coastal system. This resilience or ability to adapt
is in turn influenced by past, current and future
population and settlement patterns and rates of
socio-economic change. Therefore, at this stage
an attempt is made to incorporate socio-
economic and cultural systems into the analysis
to enable an interacting systems approach to be
taken. The aim is to try to translate impact
reduction responses into measures for
‘vulnerability reduction’ and ‘resilience
enhancement’ (Kay and Hay, 1993).
Stage 3 is focussed on the linkages within the
system and between connected systems. Kay
and Waterman (1993) made no attempt to define
the extent of the connected systems. Stage 4
considers the interaction of the systems and the
range of policy options determined by
government policies and plans. Because all
three levels of government in Australia have
jurisdiction and legislation relating to the
coastal zone, the legislative and planning
framework needs to be identified so that
response options can be incorporated into it.
The above methodology (hereafter referred to
as the Kay and Waterman methodology) was
incorporated into the brief for a nationally
funded project, the National Coastal Vulner-
ability Assessment Case Studies Project. This
project was carried out in each of the States and
Territories of Australia during 1994 and 1995
through nine case studies (Figure 1) and funded
by the federal government. One of the aims of
the project was to meet Australia’s international
commitment under the Climate Change
Convention to produce vulnerability
assessments. The results of the project were
taken to the IPCC meeting in Montreal in
October 1995.
It was noted in the final project report
(Waterman, 1996) that the aims and objectives
of the vulnerability assessment studies were
consistent with those of the Commonwealth
Coastal Policy, Living on the Coast, which has
an over-riding goal of promoting ecologically
sustainable use of the Australian coastal zone
(Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories [DEST], 1995). It was therefore
argued by Waterman (1996) that vulnerability
assessment could be incorporated into the ICZM
process for different jurisdictions. Further

ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999

54
Figure 1 Australian coastal vulnerability assessment case studies conducted by the Australian Commonwealth Government in
1994–95.
federal government funding was provided to
implement a number of the project recom-
mendations. Some of the current Australian
Commonwealth initiatives include the
development of Good Practice Guidelines for
Integrated Coastal Management (Graham and
Pitts, 1997) and the establishment of a Coastal
and Marine Planning Program which provides
resources to state and local governments for
strategic planning to address key coastal and
marine issues. A CD-ROM of the vulnerability
assessment case studies has also been produced
(DEST, 1996).
Problems encountered with the Kay and
Waterman methodology
Although the brief for the national coastal
vulnerability project required the testing of the
Kay and Waterman methodology, it appears that
Australian Geographical Studies
very few of the states applied this methodology
when conducting their case studies. Tasmania
attempted to use the ‘common methodology’ but
considered it to be too general, whereas Western
Australia encountered problems in trialling a
different methodology called Impact Zone-
Connected Area Analysis. The Queensland case
study attempted to develop a supplementary
methodology to complement the ‘common
methodology’; New South Wales used methods
developed within its own Coastal Hazard
Policy; and the Northern Territory study
attempted to develop methods based on various
existing data bases (Waterman, 1996).
The two states, Victoria and South Australia,
which attempted to use the Kay and Waterman
methodology both encountered difficulties. The
Victorian study ‘. . . expressed major doubts
over the usefulness of the methodology at
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
anything but a local level.’ (Waterman, 1996,
48). The South Australian study initially
followed the Kay and Waterman methodology
(as required by the project brief) but
encountered several problems. These are
discussed in detail below:
1. There was no pre-determined spatial scale.
The Kay and Waterman methodology con-
sidered the biophysical and socio-economic
impacts on the study area in isolation from
the connected areas. These were then
included in a later stage of the assessment.
However, in the studies undertaken in South
Australia it was found necessary to take the
reverse approach, with the characteristics of
the larger physical and socio-economic
systems identified initially, and then greater
attention given to specific study sites
considered vulnerable as a result.
2. There was no pre-determined temporal scale.
In the studies undertaken it was found
necessary to consider at least two scenarios:
a long time horizon of 100 years for the
impacts of climatic change and a shorter
planning period of 5–30 years to address
current coastal hazards.
3. The methodology included the impacts of
sea-level rise only in Stage 1. It ignored both
the other potential impacts of climatic change
and present human-induced hazards on
coastal zones. It thus failed to identify the
needs of ICZM.
4. While the ‘common methodology’ may
have been an attempt to produce
comparable quantitative assessments, the
Kay and Waterman methodology gave no
guidance for ranking management and
response option priorities. The authors
considered that by identifying the relevant
planning framework the response options
could easily be accommodated within it.
However, past experience has shown that
response options, identified by coastal
experts, may not be consistent with
government policy and priorities. For
example, in South Australia a set-back
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
55
policy has been incorporated into the
planning legislation to take account of the
potential impacts of sea-level rise. Yet the
state government, for reasons of political
expediency, has exempted existing coastal
shack development from meeting these
planning requirements (Harvey et al.,
1995).
The above methodological problems became
apparent during the vulnerability assessment
study in a region of South Australia which had
been selected for investigation because of its
biophysically unique coastal environment and
its specific socio-economic characteristics. It
was subsequently decided to expand the South
Australian vulnerability studies to a broader
range of coastal environments (biophysical and
socio-economic) in an attempt to provide and
test a more appropriate methodology for coastal
vulnerability assessment.
An alternative approach to coastal
vulnerability assessment
To overcome the problems mentioned above, an
attempt is made in this paper to develop a
procedure that produces an assessment that
considers both the current human-induced
hazards as well as the potential hazards of
climatic change. It is considered that climate-
related changes provide potential additional
stresses on the various systems. A holistic view
of coastal zone management has been taken that
includes current human-induced hazards as well
as the potential hazards of climate-induced
changes. As noted by Klein and Nicholls
(1998) ‘. . . the occurrence and magnitude of
coastal impacts of sea-level rise will be a
function of a number of future environmental
and socio-economic developments.’ For
example, in parts of South Australia,
inappropriate coastal strip development has
exacerbated erosion problems which increase
the vulnerability of coastal areas to climatic
change. Similarly, the disposal of waste into the
coastal environment has resulted in the loss of
habitat, such as seagrass, which may in turn
56 Australian Geographical Studies

Table III Revised coastal vulnerability assessment methodology.

Stage 1 Definition of the spatial scale of the entire study area using biophysical and socio-economic
boundaries.
Stage 2 Definition of the temporal scale that incorporates current human-induced hazards and potential
climatic change hazards.
Stage 3 Collection of data on the relevant biophysical characteristics of the study area.
Stage 4 Collection of data on the socio-economic, cultural and heritage characteristics of the study area.
Stage 5 Reiteration of stages 1 to 4 for selected study sites.
Stage 6 Identification of the relevant legislation, jurisdictions, plans and policies for the study area for the
three tiers of government (local, state and federal).
Stage 7 Assessment of coastal vulnerability in both qualitative and quantitative terms on the basis of the
various techniques utilised within the assessment.
Stage 8 Setting priorities for current management and further long-term objectives according to the problems
identified.

increase the susceptibility of the coast to the
impacts of climatic change. Elsewhere,
groundwater withdrawal has contributed to
coastal subsidence.
There was also an attempt to maximise
potential for ICZM by accepting ‘ecologically
sustainable development’ as the central plank
of Australian coastal policy. The challenge has
been to produce a vulnerability assessment that
can clearly define current and future problems
related to physical processes and the socio-
economic uses of an area within the current
legislative framework and, as a result, lay the
groundwork for ICZM. The methodology that
has been developed and applied to the
assessment of coastal vulnerability in South
Australia comprises eight stages which are
described below and presented in Table III.
To overcome the lack of spatial and temporal
scales in the Kay and Waterman (1993)
methodology, the first two stages of the revised
methodology used in this study define the spatial
scale of the entire study area using biophysical
and socio-economic boundaries (Stage 1) and the
temporal scale incorporating current human-
induced hazards and potential climatic change
hazards (Stage 2). These two stages go further
than Kay and Waterman’s (1993) delineation of a
‘climate change and sea-level rise impact zone’
and provide a sequential linkage with connected
areas. The revised methodology then collects data
on the relevant biophysical characteristics of the
study area (Stage 3) and on the socio-economic,
cultural and heritage characteristics of the study
area (Stage 4), followed by a reiteration of Stages
1 to 4 for selected study sites (Stage 5). These
stages facilitate a systematic collation of data on
the vulnerable and resilient components of the
system with an appropriate focus on the human
dimensions of that system.
Once Stages 1–5 have been completed, the
relevant legislation, jurisdictions, plans and
policies are identified for the study area
according to the three spheres of government
in Australia (Stage 6). It is then possible to
assess coastal vulnerability in both qualitative
and quantitative terms on the basis of the
various techniques utilised within the
assessment (Stage 7). Finally, the revised
methodology is then used to set priorities for
current management and further long-term
objectives according to the problems identified
(Stage 8). To highlight the differences between
the various approaches, Table IV compares each
stage of the IPCC, Kay and Waterman and
revised assessment methodologies. There is
some overlap between the various stages so
that they are not entirely mutually exclusive.
However, the table demonstrates major
differences between the procedures, such as
the lack of an assessment stage in the Kay and
Waterman approach. The stage-by-stage
application of the revised methodology in South
Australia is described below.

ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999

Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment 57

Table IV A comparison of the IPCC, Kay and Waterman, and revised assessment methodologies for integrated coastal zone
management.
IPCC Kay and Revised
Waterman methodology
(this paper)

Definition of Study Areas

Delineation of case study area Stage 1
spatial scale Stage 1
temporal scale Stage 2
Focus on physical and biological conditions Stage 1
Incorporation of current human-induced hazards
and climatic change hazards Stage 2

Data Collection
Inventory of study area characteristics Stage 2
biophysical Stage 3
socio-economic and cultural and heritage Stage 4
Analysis of vulnerable and resilient components, including
socio-economic and cultural systems Stage 2
Analysis of links between and within systems
and connected areas Stage 3
Inventory of study sites selected from study area: biophysical,
socio-economic and cultural and heritage Stage 5
Identification of relevant development factors Stage 3
Identification of relevant legislation Stage 6

Assessment
Assess physical changes and natural system responses Stage 4
Assessment of vulnerability profile and interpretation of results Stage 6
Assessment of vulnerability in qualitative and quantitative terms Stage 7

Responses
Formulation of response strategies and cost-benefit analysis Stage 5
Formulation of management strategies with regard to
government policies Stage 4
Identify future needs and develop a plan of action Stage 7
Set priorities for management: current and long-term Stage 8

Stage 1: Definition of the spatial scale of the
entire study area using biophysical and socio-
economic boundaries
The South Australian coast is long (4000 km) and
biophysically and socio-economically diverse.
Three sections of the coast, each exhibiting major
differences in physical, biological and socio-
economic characteristics, were selected for
vulnerability assessment. The northern Spencer
Gulf region was chosen as it had already provided
background data for the previous vulnerability
study (Harvey et al., 1995). Two additional
regions (Adelaide Metropolitan coast and
Encounter Bay) were selected in order to provide
a contrasting array of physical and socio-economic
settings. Figure 2 shows the three study regions
and their broad biophysical characteristics. The
distance between the sites is only 400–450 km, but
the hazard and response options identified vary
greatly due to the local conditions.

ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999

58
Figure 2 South Australian coastal vulnerability assessment study sites investigated in this study.
Stage 2: Definition of the temporal scale that
incorporates current human-induced hazards
and potential climatic change hazards
Two scenarios have been considered in the
vulnerability studies. First, a 100 year period for
the potential climatic change-induced hazards
and, secondly, a shorter planning period of 5 to
30 years to address current human-induced
hazards. The 100 year period corresponds
broadly with the IPCC climate and sea-level
prediction scenarios, whereas the shorter period
is more appropriate for immediate management
response to coastal hazards and planning. In
fact, some response options have a shorter time
frame than the 5 year period because of either
short-lived coastal hazards or frequency of
policy changes. The articulation of two such
Australian Geographical Studies
time periods, for cost-benefit planning purposes,
was noted as a problem at the World Coast
Conference (IPCC, 1994). It was considered
essential to place the vulnerability assessment
within the time framework within which
planning decisions are made.
Stage 3: Collection of data on the relevant
biophysical characteristics of the study area
Northern Spencer Gulf is an inverse estuary
with restricted water exchange to the open
ocean. The Adelaide Metropolitan coast is
located on the relatively protected shore of Gulf
St Vincent, but is exposed to low to medium
wave energy and storm waves. In contrast,
Encounter Bay is open to the Southern Ocean
and subject to high seas, gale force winds, and
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
storm and swell waves.
The highest tides in northern Spencer Gulf
reach 3.15 m at the top of the gulf and the
highest predicted tide for the Adelaide Metro-
politan coast is 3 m. By contrast, the Encounter
Bay region has a micro-tidal regime with a
spring high-water tide of only 0.8 m.
Waves affecting northern Spencer Gulf are
locally generated wind waves. Southerly winds
generate waves that may reach heights of 2 m
(Gostin et al., 1984). On the Metropolitan coast,
storm waves of 1.8 to 2.0 m rarely occur, with
waves of 0.5 m prevailing for approximately
half the time (Wynne et al., 1984, 98). For the
more exposed Encounter Bay area, storm waves
of up to 6–7 m occur with 2–4 m waves being
the most common.
Northern Spencer Gulf is experiencing
isostatic upwarping of 0.8 mm aÿ1 and tide
gauge data indicate a slightly negative sea level
trend over the last 50 years (Harvey and
Belperio, 1994). The Adelaide Metropolitan
coast is experiencing relatively rapid sea-level
rise of over 2.0 mm aÿ1 which has been
compounded by land subsidence of 0.5 mm aÿ1
(Coastal Management Branch, 1992). Within
the Encounter Bay region, coastal erosion has
occurred at Middleton and this is considered to
be due to local tectonic subsidence of the
Murray Basin (Bourman, 1979). This variation
in relative sea-level rise within South Australia
is noteworthy given the failure of the ‘common
methodology’ to take regional differences into
account.
Seagrass, mangrove and samphire com-
munities dominate the sheltered environment
of the northern Spencer Gulf. These support a
diverse and abundant fauna including fish and
crustaceans of economic importance. Seagrass
is also present in the Gulf St Vincent but it is
estimated that up to 12 000 ha have been lost,
partly as a result of human impact (Zann, 1995).
The sandy beaches are backed by a series of
parallel dunes increasing in height from 4 m at
the coast to about 12 m further inland. However,
most of these are now covered in residential
development (Bourman and Harvey, 1986, 122–
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
59
123). The Encounter Bay study area contains
wetlands of international importance within the
River Murray estuary which are listed under the
International Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance as a significant water-
fowl habitat. High vegetated dunes characterise
the Sir Richard Peninsula east of Middleton, and
the region supports a varied fauna including fish
of economic significance, migratory and
resident water and shore birds, and the southern
right whale.
Stage 4: Collection of data on the socio-
economic, cultural and heritage characteristics
of the study area
Three important South Australian industrial
cities (with populations of between 15 000 and
26 000), Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie,
are situated in the northern Spencer Gulf, with
the economy of each city based on mineral
resources and processing. They have all
experienced population decline since the mid-
1980s (Mines and Energy South Australia,
1994). The Adelaide Metropolitan region is a
highly developed residential and recreational
area for both the local population (1 million)
and tourists from elsewhere. The coastal zone is
also utilised for the disposal of sewage and
stormwater emanating from the greater Adelaide
region. The Encounter Bay region is currently
undergoing a change in land use from
agriculture to tourist and residential develop-
ment. The region is subject to large seasonal
pressure from visitors, mostly from the Adelaide
region. Land-based whale watching is also
attracting large numbers of spectators and this
pressure is expected to continue.
In northern Spencer Gulf, parts of False Bay,
the Flinders Ranges and Port Augusta are of
Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. By
contrast, the European heritage in the region has
been given less prominence in government
reports which have focussed on the presence
of a lighthouse and two cottages built for
lighthouse keepers (Harvey et al., 1995). The
whole of the Adelaide metropolitan coast has
mythological and cultural significance for the
60
Aboriginal community and the local Kaurna
people. Furthermore, the metropolitan beaches
are important as a modern cultural recreational
resource for South Australians. As part of the
European cultural heritage, an area of seabed off
the West Beach study site has been declared an
Historic Reserve under the South Australian
Heritage Act 1978. Although further research is
required on the Aboriginal cultural aspects of
the Encounter Bay study area, the Sir Richard
Peninsula is rich in midden, camp and burial
sites (Bourman and Murray-Wallace, 1991).
Stage 5: Reiteration of stages 1 to 4 for selected
study sites
Following the initial collection of data on the
study regions, further studies were undertaken
on particular sites. In northern Spencer Gulf, the
cities of Port Pirie and Port Augusta were
selected for more detailed study as they are
experiencing problems from sea water
inundation and a rise in the height and salinity
of the groundwater table. Blanche Harbour was
chosen because it has experienced linear shack
(holiday house) development, and False Bay
was chosen because its seagrass and mangrove
habitats act as important nurseries for
commercially exploited marine fauna (Carvalho
and Clouston, 1995).
The Adelaide Metropolitan coast consists of
29 km of sand beach extending from Kingston
Park in the south to Outer Harbor in the north.
Within this area, West Beach was chosen for
detailed study. West Beach contains one of the
few remaining areas of undeveloped dunes on
the coast. Stormwater from the Sturt and
Torrens Rivers and sewage from the Glenelg
Sewage Treatment plant reach the sea in this
area. As a consequence, it is estimated that 7000
ha of seagrass has been lost off West Beach
(Zann, 1995). The area also provides low to
medium cost tourist accommodation, providing
about half the coastal accommodation in
Adelaide (West Beach Trust, 1993).
In the Encounter Bay study region, the site of
Middleton Beach was examined more closely
because the sandhills hereabouts have been
Australian Geographical Studies
completely eroded and the coastline is now
formed of cliffed alluvium. The rate of erosion
is estimated to be between 0.3 m aÿ1 and 1.9
m aÿ1, with some 200 m of coastal erosion
occurring over a 106 year period (Bourman,
1979). Approval for a housing subdivision
adjacent to the coast has been given, but there
has been some controversy about whether it
meets the current planning requirements
concerning set-back distances for erosion and
sea-level rise.
The River Murray estuary (from the Goolwa
barrage to the mouth of the river) was also
examined. Five barrages were built across the
channels of the estuary in the 1930s and they
now regulate the amount of freshwater being
received by the estuary. It was considered that
the Goolwa barrage could potentially be
affected by a sea-level rise. To the west of the
mouth is the Sir Richard Peninsula which is an
area of revegetated dunes, which are highly
mobile at the eastern extremity of the peninsula
(Harvey, 1996).
Stage 6: Identification of the relevant legisla-
tion, jurisdictions, plans and policies for the
study area for the three spheres of government
Australia has a three-tier system of government
and the Commonwealth, the state and the local
authority have overlapping jurisdiction over the
coastal zone. The Commonwealth government
has no direct powers over environmental
management but, through its external affairs
power, is responsible for meeting the
requirements of international treaties and
conventions to which Australia is a signatory.
As a result there is a large number of items of
federal legislation that are relevant to the coastal
zone, but no specific legislation related to
national ICZM (DEST, 1995).
It is the states’ responsibility to legislate with
regard to environmental management within
their jurisdiction. However, there is much
fragmentation and overlapping responsibility
with regard to management of the coastal zone.
In South Australia, there are 12 state
government departments each with its own
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
legislation involved in coastal zone
management. A Coast Protection Act (1972)
does exist but has been under review since 1992.
The state government has responded to the issue
of climate-induced hazards with a Policy on
Coast Protection and New Coastal Development
produced in 1991 which requires that coastal
developments are safe for 0.3 m sea-level rise
and 100 years of coastal erosion. These policies
have been incorporated into the Development
Act, 1993 which is the major item of planning
legislation for the state.
Local government authorities are primarily
responsible for the care, control and
management of coastal lands under their
jurisdiction. However, there is very little
horizontal integration within each council and
responsibility for coastal management is
fragmented between council personnel. This
problem is further exacerbated by a number of
councils having jurisdiction within the study
sites. In northern Spencer Gulf there are five
local government authorities. At the West Beach
study site (which is only 5 km in length) there is
one local government body (until recently there
were three), a State Government Trust and the
Federal government agency. The spatial scale of
the Encounter Bay study region was specifically
chosen to coincide with the jurisdiction of the
Alexandrina Council. However, the land below
the high water mark is owned by the Minister
for Infrastructure and managed by South
Australia Water, the land between the high
and low water marks is managed by the Council,
and the area below high water mark on the River
Murray side is owned by the Minister of
Transport.
Stage 7: Assessment of coastal vulnerability in
both qualitative and quantitative terms on the
basis of the various techniques utilised within
the assessment
On the basis of the assessment, the current
human-induced, as opposed to climatic-change
induced hazards, are considered to be of greater
concern. Each of the sites is experiencing
different hazards. For northern Spencer Gulf,
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
61
marine pollution from the lead smelter at Port
Pirie, the power station at Port Augusta and the
steelworks at Whyalla-False Bay continue to
create hazards for the aquatic flora and fauna of
the area. Given that the seagrass and mangrove
environments provide nurseries for many
commercial marine species, these problems are
of environmental and economic concern. With
regard to climatic change, the loss of seagrass
habitats may also increase the vulnerability of
the coast to erosion as sea floor friction is
reduced, allowing larger, more damaging waves
to penetrate to the beach (Zann, 1995). Shack
development adjacent to the coast does not
conform with the state government’s Flooding
and Erosion Policy and continues to exacerbate
erosion and pollution through sewage outfalls.
On the Adelaide Metropolitan coast,
naturally-occurring coastal erosion has been
increased by the locking up of sediments under
development and the construction of artificial
structures which interrupt the natural northerly
littoral drift. At West Beach, there has been a
net loss of 34 000 m3 aÿ1 of sand, even with an
average replenishment of 75 000 m3 aÿ1
(Clouston, 1995). The erection of seawalls to
provide protection against beach loss for
property and infrastructure has resulted in
increased scouring and further erosion at the
ends of the walls.
The seasonal influx of tourists and increasing
residential pressure pose the main threats to
coastal ecosystems in the Encounter Bay study
area. Dirga (1993) suggested that the ecological
consequences of whale watching in Encounter
Bay include environmental degradation of the
coastal cliffs and headlands, and accelerated
erosion of the dune systems. Tourism
infrastructure, such as caravan parks and shops,
has been increasing at certain beaches in the
Port Elliot and Goolwa area. Some of these
developments are now under threat due to
flooding, and consequently seawalls have been
built to protect the buildings. Development is
still occurring at Middleton Beach where
erosion is taking place. The Sir Richard
Peninsula is currently used by four-wheel drive
62
vehicles to reach the Murray Mouth; during high
tide this requires driving on the sand dunes.
Both Port Pirie and Port Augusta, which have
been built on intertidal flats, have experienced
coastal flooding problems and these will be
exacerbated by any sea-level rise. It is estimated
that a sea-level rise of 30 cm, combined with a
one in a hundred tidal event, could inundate
40% of Port Pirie (Lange Dames and Campbell,
1991a). Furthermore, if the (saline) groundwater
table rises by 30 cm, it may increase soil salinity
and change the vegetation. Under these
conditions, groundwater discharge may occur
in the low lying areas of the city. Similar
problems of coastal flooding and rising
groundwater have been identified in Port
Augusta (Lange Dames and Campbell, 1991b).
Combined with the potential problems of sea-
level rise and increased height of the ground-
water table is the increase in water temperatures.
An anticipated increase in water temperature of
2–3oC could result in changes in the
characteristics of benthic communities, changes
in dominant species and species number, and
changes in the ability of individuals or
populations to survive. This may be particularly
relevant in northern Spencer Gulf, where many
communities live at the upper limits of their
temperature tolerance.
For the Adelaide region, the current state
government policy considers that ‘. . . any new
coastal development should be capable of being
reasonably protected from a 1 m sea-level rise
by the year 2100.’ (Harvey and Belperio, 1994,
3). This policy adopted the precautionary
principle based on the earlier 1990 IPCC sea-
level rise predictions, although these have
subsequently been reduced (Harvey and
Belperio, 1994). As for northern Spencer Gulf,
the groundwater table is already dangerously
high and an increase in groundwater height and
salinity is of concern (Taylor et al., 1974). The
seagrass may also be affected by the higher
water temperatures and evaporation rates.
The major potential impacts of climatic change
in Encounter Bay are increased erosion and
coastal flooding. Erosion will probably increase
Australian Geographical Studies
at Middleton Beach due to higher storm
frequency, with higher waves breaking onto the
alluvial cliffs. Although current legislation has
addressed the problem, there are still risks
associated with further development. The
problem of coastal flooding may become worse
at sites such as Horseshoe Bay, where seawalls
currently protect development. Depending on the
height to which sea-level may rise, the barrages
would be overtopped by sea water from the
estuary, especially during storms with south and
southwest winds, thus increasing lake salinity
(Rolls, 1989).
Stage 8: Setting priorities for current manage-
ment and further long-term objectives according
to the problems identified
Although the ‘common methodology’ was not
used for the vulnerability assessment case studies,
the response options defined by the IPCC have
been used to provide guidance for the relevant
authorities in reducing the potential hazards of
climatic change. Table V shows the existing and
recommended response options for the study
sites. The existing response options are those of
the relevant government departments and industry
stakeholder groups. The recommended response
options are those of the authors.
In northern Spencer Gulf, levees have been
built to protect Port Pirie and Port Augusta from
marine inundation. While these will protect
residential and industrial development, there are
concerns that they will limit the retreat of
mangroves and other vegetation communities in
the face of a sea-level rise. However, given the
locations of both Port Pirie and Port Augusta
and the importance of the industries located in
these cities for the regional economy, the only
acceptable option is to continue with protection.
Similarly, at False Bay, levees constructed to
prevent saltwater inundation resulted in the
restriction of the areas available for mangrove
and samphire migration. Industries here indicated
that they would adapt to any sea-level rise by
increasing the height of the levees. However, due
to the environmental significance of the Bay as a
nursery for marine species (Carvalho and
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment 63

Table V Existing and recommended response options according to the IPCC response categories for integrated coastal zone
management.
Selected region and sites Existing and recommended response options

Protect Adapt Retreat Do Nothing

Northern Spencer Gulf

Port Pirie existing option
construct levees
recommended option
construct levees

Port Augusta existing option

construct levees
recommended option
construct levees

Blanche Harbour existing option considered recommended option

private protection too expensive
(not a government
endorsed option)

False Bay existing option recommended

increase height option
of levees short-term
(the long-term
option is to
relocate)

Metropolitan Adelaide
West Beach existing option recommended
sand replenishment option
and seawall protection long-term
recommended option
short-term

Encounter Bay
Middleton Beach existing option recommended
restrict further option
development or
set-back restrictions

Sir Richard Peninsula existing option

short-term
recommended option

Goolwa Barrage existing option existing option existing option

long-term long-term short-term
(raising the barrage (retreat to upstream
or pumping the excess location was
water was considered) considered)
recommended recommended
option option
short-term long-term

ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999

64
Figure 3 The Blanche Harbour study site illustrating the proximity of shacks (holiday houses) to the high tide mark and
showing ad hoc protection works built by residents (Source: Coast and Marine Section, Environment Protection Authority).
Clouston, 1995), the impacts of climatic change
could be reduced by retreat of the industries (that
is, rebuilding the levees further inland in the
short-term) and relocation in the long-term. This
would also reduce other impacts of human
activities, such as pollution, in the area.
In the case of shack development at Blanche
Harbour, although a few residents have been
trying to protect their development, the ‘do
nothing’ approach has been adopted, as
relocation is seen as too expensive and private
protection works may cause future problems if
allowed. Figure 3 illustrates the proximity of the
shacks to the high tide mark and the protection
works built by residents. The long-term
preferred option would be to retreat. This may
be a more cost-effective approach in the longer-
term than protection.
Australian Geographical Studies
On the Adelaide Metropolitan coast, the
current response is one of protection. This is
provided by the soft engineering solution of a
beach replenishment program and by the hard
engineering solution of rock seawall protection,
illustrated in Figure 4. The hazard policy
produced by the Coast Protection Board, which
is now incorporated in the South Australian
Development Act 1993, is an adaptive response
for new developments. However, neither of
these responses provides long-term beach
amenity. From a study of the economic value
of Adelaide beaches (Evans and Burgan, 1993),
it can be shown that beach amenity has a higher
economic and cultural value than the extra value
of beach view afforded to the minority of
residents of beach front properties. However, in
20 to 30 years, when sources of replenishment
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
Figure 4 A section of the Metropolitan Adelaide coast illustrating sand replenishment (right-hand side of photograph) from a
dredging program, the proximity of roads and houses to the foreshore and the hardrock protection (Source: Coast and Marine
Section, Environment Protection Authority).
sand are depleted, the protection of those
properties with seawalls will result in the
complete loss of beaches. The alternative retreat
option should therefore be considered (Clouston
and Carvalho, 1996).
The logical option of the retreat of urban
housing from the eroded sand dunes of the
Adelaide coast will require long-term planning,
as demonstrated in a study of coastal
vulnerability at West Beach (Clouston, 1995).
Titus (1991) has suggested that a means of
achieving relocation on coastal lowlands with
sea-level rise is to convert the property rights
(with compensation if necessary) of the current
owners to long-term leases which expire after 99
years, or to conditional leases which would
expire after the property is inundated. This
‘presumed mobility’ option allows people to use
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
65
property today as they choose, but on the
condition that it will be abandoned if and when
sea-level rises enough to inundate it. A similar
problem of inappropriately located housing at
Blanche Harbour could be dealt with in the
same manner.
In Encounter Bay, the response option varies
according to the problem identified. Seawalls
have already been constructed for sites where
coastal flooding is occurring and these can be
increased in height. At Middleton, the present
response option is one of adaptation, but if a
precautionary long-term approach is taken, then
retreat is considered to be the best option given
the rate of cliff erosion in the area. The sand
dunes of the Sir Richard Peninsula will retreat
naturally, so the logical response is to do
nothing. Some response options for the barrages
66
have already been examined by Rolls (1989). If
sea-level were to rise closer to the top of the
barrages, then three options could be
considered: first, to raise the barrages; secondly,
to replace them with a barrage at another
location further from the inlet; or thirdly, to
pump the excess water from the lakes into the
estuary over the barrages. Each of these
strategies would require more detailed studies,
which would include expected changes to flow
in the Murray itself. Although adaptation is the
preferred option in the short-term, relocation
may be a long-term option. However, the
selection of an appropriate option requires
further research because of the complexity of
the management issues in the area.
Integrating vulnerability assessment with
coastal zone management
Some of the criticisms relating to the application
of the IPCC ‘common methodology’ in
Australia included ‘. . . the incompatibility of
an economic (cash) based assessment technique
within a state government coastal management
system that is based on planning principles and
community involvement and the lack of
consideration in the methodology of climato-
logical, oceanographic, biological, social and
economic factors other than sea-level rise’ (Kay
and Waterman, 1993, 238). In response to these
criticisms, the Kay and Waterman methodology
was developed but, as Australian vulnerability
studies have demonstrated, it has a number of
shortcomings of its own. The revised
methodology presented in this paper (Table
III) attempts to overcome some of these
problems, which include the absence of both
pre-determined spatial and temporal scales, an
over-emphasis on sea-level rise relative to other
impacts (such as human-induced hazards), and a
lack of management and response priorities
which would allow an integrated approach to
coastal management.
The approach taken for the assessment of
coastal vulnerability in the initial stages was
qualitative so that all relevant factors (from
Australian Geographical Studies
biophysical to socio-economic and cultural)
could be considered. The inclusion of these
factors may not have been possible if the
assessment were constrained by a more defined
quantitative modelling technique such as that
used for the IPCC ‘common methodology’
(Clouston and Carvalho, 1996). A scoring
technique that ranked priorities for current or
future management guidance was attempted, but
was not adopted because of difficulties in
quantifying social and cultural factors and the
lack of statistical rigour.
Where quantitative information was readily
available this was taken into account in the
assessment. For example, the surveying of biota
and the GIS mapping of contours were both
undertaken. However, given the inherent
uncertainties of climatic change impacts and
the costs of data collection, it was not possible
to collect these types of data across all sites.
Rather, best judgment, based on the best
available knowledge and information, was
utilised to assess vulnerability and set priorities
for management.
From the South Australian vulnerability
assessment studies, it is apparent that the revised
methodology is an appropriate tool for regional
and site-specific vulnerability studies within
broader coastal areas. It has been demonstrated
that the methodology can be applied to areas of
variable biophysical and socio-economic
characteristics which require a range of manage-
ment response options within different spatial
and temporal contexts and, as a result, that the
procedure provides a good foundation for ICZM
in Australia.
This improved methodology moves away
from the over-emphasis on sea-level rise and
climatic change of previous methodologies, and
provides a relevant focus for examining the
combined effects of biophysical and human-
induced coastal changes within an appropriate
planning framework. Not only does this holistic
long-term planning approach have greater
potential for integration with Australian coastal
management but, with further testing, could also
be applicable in other countries.
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
It is recognised that there are major
differences between the coastal management
system in Australia, based on planning and
community involvement, and those systems in
other countries, such as The Netherlands, where
engineering solutions, protective works and
cost-benefit analyses assume a higher priority.
These relative emphases on economic- or
planning-based management approaches, should
be clearly identified in Stage 6 of the revised
methodology before the vulnerability
assessment and setting of management priorities
(Stages 7 and 8) are completed. This may
produce slightly different outcomes according to
the approach taken, but the revised methodology
is not restricted in its application by a single
approach, such as the original IPCC economic-
based assessment technique.
Another advantage of the revised method-
ology is that it incorporates an assessment of
cultural and heritage characteristics (Stage 4).
This was lacking in the original IPCC
methodology and was the cause of some
criticism, particularly in its application to small
island states in the Pacific. The revised
methodology facilitates the incorporation of
cultural differences in order to achieve proper
integration. It is acknowledged that many
developing countries may lack basic environ-
mental data and that this may preclude a full
vulnerability assessment. However, a greater
problem in achieving a truly integrative
methodology would appear to be the non-
inclusion of current human-induced hazards,
such as pollution, inappropriate development
and protection works. These non-sustainable
management practices, apart from having their
own impacts, are likely to increase any climate-
induced coastal vulnerability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge comments on an earlier
version of the manuscript by Dr Richard Burroughs and Dr
Rudd Platt. The authors also wish to acknowledge the useful
comments provided on this manuscript by Dr Peter Cowell
and an anonymous referee.
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
67
REFERENCES
Bourman, R.P., 1979: Geomorphological contributions to
coastal management. In Corbett, D. and Sibly, J. (eds)
Southern Heritage: the Proceedings of the Conference
Focus on our Southern Heritage. Conservation Council of
South Australia and Department of Continuing Education,
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 80–88.
Bourman, R.P. and Harvey, N., 1986: Landforms. In Nance,
C. and Speight, D.L. (eds) A Land Transformed.
Environmental Change in South Australia. Longman
Cheshire, Melbourne, 78–125.
Bourman, R.P. and Murray-Wallace, C.V., 1991: Holocene
evolution of a sand spit at the mouth of a large river
system: Sir Richard Peninsula and the Murray Mouth,
South Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie
Supplementband 81, 63–83.
Carter, T.R., Parry, M.L., Nishioka, S. and Harasawa, H.,
1994: Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate
Change Impacts and Adaptation. Report of Working
Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, University College London, London and Centre
for Global Environmental Research, Tsukuba.
Carvalho, P. and Clouston, B., 1995: Coastal hazards at
False Bay: climate or human induced? South Australian
Geographical Journal 94, 106–112.
Clouston, B., 1995: Review of coastal vulnerability
assessment for coastal zone management in metropolitan
Adelaide. Unpublished M.Env.Stud. thesis, Mawson
Centre for Environmental Studies, The University of
Adelaide, Adelaide.
Clouston, B. and Carvalho. P., 1996: Review of
methodology for assessing coastal vulnerability. In
Harvey, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the Australian Coastal
Management Conference. The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, 145–150.
Coastal Management Branch, 1992: Review of Alternatives
for the Adelaide Metropolitan Beach Replenishment
Strategy. Department of Environment and Planning.
Adelaide.
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories
(DEST), 1995: Living on the Coast The Commonwealth
Coastal Policy. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories
(DEST), 1996: Australian Coastal Vulnerability
Assessment Project Report. Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
Dirga, E.R., 1993: An environmental profile: the whale
watchers of Encounter Bay, South Australia. Unpublished
M.Env.Stud. thesis, Mawson Centre for Environmental
Studies, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Evans, M.D. and Burgan, B.J., 1993: The Economic Value of
the Adelaide Metropolitan Beaches. Report prepared for
the South Australian Coast Protection Board. The
University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Gostin, V.A., Hails, J.R. and Belperio, A.P., 1984: The
sedimentary framework of South Australia. Marine
Geology 61, 111–138.
68
Graham, B. and Pitts, D., 1997: Good Practice Guidelines
for Integrated Coastal Planning. The Royal Australian
Planning Institute, Hobart.
Harvey, N., 1996: The significance of coastal processes for
management of the River Murray Estuary. Australian
Geographical Studies 34, 45–57.
Harvey, N. and Belperio, A.P., 1994: Implications of climate
change for the South Australian coastline. Transactions of
the Royal Society of South Australia 118, 45–52.
Harvey, N., Clouston, B. and Carvalho, P., 1995: Coastal
Vulnerability Study: South Australia. The University of
Adelaide, Adelaide.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1991:
The Seven Steps to the Assessment of the Vulnerability of
Coastal Areas to Sea-Level Rise (Draft). Response
Strategies Working Group. Ministry of Transport and
Public Works, The Hague.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1992:
Global Climate Change and the Rising Challenge of the
Sea. Coastal Zone Management Subgroup. Ministry of
Transport, Public Works and Water Management — Tidal
Waters Division, The Hague.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1993:
Report of IPCC Eastern Hemisphere Workshop on the
Vulnerability of Sea-level Rise and Coastal Zone
Management. In McLean, R.F. and Mimura, N. (eds)
Vulnerability Assessment to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal
Zone Management. Proceedings of the IPCC Eastern
Hemisphere Workshop, Tokyo, 1–39.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1994:
Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challenges of the 21st
Century. Report of the World Coast Conference,
November 1993. Ministry of Transport, Public Works
and Water Management, National Institute for Coastal
and Marine Management, The Hague.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1995:
Summary for Policy Makers. Second Assessment Report,
Working Group III. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1996:
Climate Change 1995 Impacts, Adaptations and
Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical
Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1998:
The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: an Assessment
of Vulnerability. A Special Report of IPCC Working
Group II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kay, R.C., Eliot, I.G., Caton, B., Morvell, G. and Waterman,
P., 1996: A review of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s ‘Common Methodology for assessing
the Vulnerability of Coastal Areas to Sea-Level Rise’.
Coastal Management 24, 165–188.
Kay, R.C., Eliot, I.G. and Klem, G., 1992: Analysis of the
IPCC Sea-level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology using Geographe Bay, SW Western
Australian Geographical Studies
Australia as a Case Study. Coastal risk management
report to the Department of Arts, Sports, Environment and
Territories, Canberra.
Kay, R.C. and Hay, J.E., 1993: A decision support approach
to coastal vulnerability and resilience assessment: a tool
for integrated coastal zone management. In McLean, R.F.
and Mimura, N. (eds) Vulnerability Assessment to Sea-
Level Rise and Coastal Zone Management. Proceedings
of the IPCC Eastern Hemisphere Workshop, Tokyo, 213–
225.
Kay, R.C. and Waterman, P., 1993: Review of the
applicability of the ‘common methodology for assessment
of vulnerability to sea-level rise’ in the Australian Coastal
Zone. In McLean, R.F. and Mimura, N. (eds)
Vulnerability Assessment to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal
Zone Management. Proceedings of the IPCC Eastern
Hemisphere Workshop, Tokyo, 237–248.
Klein, R. and Nicholls, R., 1998: Coastal zones. In
Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact
Assessments and Adaptation Strategies. United Nations
Environment Program, Nairobi, 5.1–5.49.
Lange Dames and Campbell Australia Pty Ltd, 1991a: Tidal
Flooding Study for the City of Port Pirie, South Australia.
Report prepared for the city of Port Pirie, Port Pirie.
Lange Dames and Campbell Australia Pty Ltd, 1991b: Tidal
Flooding Study for the City of Port Augusta, South
Australia. Report prepared for the city of Port Augusta,
Port Augusta.
Mines and Energy South Australia., 1994: The Resource
Processing Strategy. Mines and Energy South Australia,
Adelaide.
Pernetta, J.C. and Milliman, J.D., 1995: Land-Ocean
Interactions in the Coastal Zone, Implementation Plan.
The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme,
Report 33, International Council of Scientific Unions,
Stockholm.
Rolls, J., 1989: The Murray under climatic change. In
Dendy, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the Greenhouse ’88:
Planning for Climate Change Conference. Department of
Environment and Planning, Adelaide, 51–58.
Smith, K., 1996: Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk
and Reducing Disaster. Routledge, London.
Taylor, J.K., Thomson, B.P. and Shepherd, R.G., 1974: The
Soils and Geology of the Adelaide Area. Department of
Mines, Adelaide.
Titus, J.G., 1991: Greenhouse effect and coastal wetland
policy: how Americans could abandon an area the size of
Massachusetts at minimum cost. Environmental
Management 15, 39–58.
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), 1993: Agenda 21: Programme
of Action for Sustainable Development. United Nations
Department of Public Information, New York.
United Nations, 1992: United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New
York.
Waterman, P., 1996: Australian Coastal Vulnerability
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
Improving Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
Assessment Project Report. Department of the
Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.
West Beach Trust, 1993: West Beach Recreation Reserve,
Planning Strategy, 1993-1997. The West Beach Trust,
Adelaide.
Woodroffe, C.D. and McLean, R.F., 1993: Cocos (Keeling)
Islands: Vulnerability to Sea-level Rise. Climate Change
and Environmental Liaison Branch, Department of the
Environment, Sport and Territories, Commonwealth
Government of Australia, Canberra.
ß Institute of Australian Geographers 1999
69
Wynne, A.A., Fotheringham, D.G., Freeman, R., Moulds, B.,
Penney, S.W., Petrusevics, P., Tucker, R. and Ellis, D.P.,
1984: Adelaide Coast Protection Strategy Review.
Department of Environment and Planning. Adelaide.
Zann, L.P., 1995: Our Sea, Our Future: Major Findings of
the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories,
Ocean Rescue 2000 Program, Canberra.