Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on Small
Island Developing States
Rosanne Martyr-Koller1, Adelle Thomas1,2,
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner1,3, Alexander Nauels1,4 and
Tabea Lissner1
Sea-level rise poses a significant threat to Small Island
Developing States (SIDS) due to the concentration of people,
assets, and infrastructure in coastal zones. This review
assesses literature on key emerging topics in sea level rise
including: the lasting impact of near-term mitigation on long-
term sea-level rise; new global coastal vertical elevation data
and their impact on existing sea-level rise projections; and the
interaction of sea-level rise with other hazards, including
salinization, tropical cyclones and extreme precipitation. We
characterize the regional nature of sea-level rise for SIDS and
highlight associated impacts and risks. Finally, we review
approaches to address sea-level rise as well as limits to
adaptation and resultant economic and non-economic loss and
damage that may be experienced by SIDS.
Addresses
1
Climate Analytics, 10969 Berlin, Germany
2
University of the Bahamas, Nassau, Bahamas
3
Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human–
Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,
10099 Berlin, Germany
4
Australian-German Climate & Energy College, The University of
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Corresponding author:
Martyr-Koller, Rosanne (rosanne.martyr-koller@climateanalytics.org)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
This review comes from a themed issue on Slow onset events related
to climate change
Edited by Susana Adamo, Riyanti Djalante, Prabodh GD Chakrabarti,
Fabrice G Renaud, Amsalu Woldie Yalew, Doreen Stabinsky,
Zinta Zommers and Koko Warner
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 5th June 2021
Received: 18 August 2020; Accepted: 04 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.05.001
1877-3435/ã 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creative-
commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
Human-induced changes to the climate have and will
result in new climate conditions, hazards and impacts,
spanning short (hours to days) and long (decades to
millennia) timescales [1]. Slow Onset Events, resulting
from the latter timescales, ‘refer to the risks and impacts
www.sciencedirect.com
associated with: increasing temperatures; desertification;
loss of biodiversity; land and forest degradation; glacial
retreat and related impacts; ocean acidification; sea level
rise; and salinization’ (https://unfccc.int/wim-excom/
areas-of-work/slow-onset-events#eq-2). Sea-level Rise
(SLR) is a slow-onset and very long-lasting event of
climate change posing a significant threat to the lives
and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, infra-
structure, ecosystems, and world heritage located near the
Earth’s coastlines [2]. Global mean sea-level is projected
to rise 0.43 0.84 m by 2100 relative to 1986–2005,
depending on future warming scenarios, with significant
variations at local and regional scales [2]. Global and
regional mean SLR have several cascading effects, with
biophysical impacts including land submergence and loss;
increased frequency in extreme sea-level (ESL) events —
the combined height of astronomical tides and storm
surge; enhanced flooding, erosion; salinization; and loss
of coastal and marine ecosystem services [3]. Socio-
economic impacts from the aforementioned hazards
include fatalities and injury to people; destruction and
damage to infrastructure; agricultural and other economic
sectoral losses; disruption of human activities and ser-
vices; loss of cultural heritage and sites; and increased
overall human, business and infrastructural exposure and
vulnerability [3,4].
Impacts of climate change that (a) can be avoided by mitiga-
tion and adaptation efforts, (b) have not been avoided
(‘unavoided’) through adequate mitigation and adaptation
efforts, or (c) cannot be avoided (‘unavoidable’) are consid-
ered to be loss and damage [5]. Impacts on items that are
traded in markets and quantified for example, in terms of %
GDP, are economic loss and damage, while losses that are
intangible or are not traded in markets, such as life, health,
mobility, territory, and cultural heritage, are non-economic
(also referred to as intangible, or non-commensurable) loss and
damage [6,7]. Impact attribution to SLR ‘remains challeng-
ing due to the influence of other climate-related and no-
climatic drivers such as infrastructure development and
human induced habitat degradation’ [3]. Research has, not-
withstanding, grown in this sphere, with studies of global and
regional estimates of economic and non-economic impacts
from flood damage due to SLR. Estimates of global annual
flood costs which include additional adaptation to account for
flooding impacts are estimated in trillions US$ or 0.3%–5% of
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
246 Slow onset events related to climate change
global GDP, with up to 3% of the global population impacted
annually by 2100 [8,9,10,11,6].
Small Island Developing States (SIDS), a distinct group
of developing countries, experience significant vulnera-
bility to climate change in general and SLR in particular
due to the large portions of people, assets, and infrastruc-
ture located in the coastal zone. SLR has been a climate
change hazard of particular concern for island nations
since adoption of the Barbados Programme of Action in
1994 that detailed the particular challenges of achieving
sustainable development in SIDS [12]. These islands
(Figure 1), located in the Caribbean Sea, the Pacific,
Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and Mediterranean and
South China Sea, already experience negative impacts
and face significant risks from both climate change-
induced rapid-onset events, such as storms, and slow-
onset processes including SLR, land erosion, and changes
in the global water cycle [13]. Projected changes in
mean sea level in ocean basins where several SIDS are
located, such as the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean,
are just about or often above global mean sea level rise
[3,14]. Current SLR impacts in SIDS include: land-loss
and coastal erosion, increased coastal flooding from tides,
storms and waves, and increased salinization of coastal
aquifers, and has resulted in contraction of habitats, shifts
in the geographical location of coastal species, loss of
Figure 1
SIDS are identified as a group of 38 UN Member States and 20 Non-UN Member/Associate Members located in three regions: the Caribbean
(marked by teal areas/circles on the map); the Pacific (green); and the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and South China Seas (orange).
Source: map created by Osiris.
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SIDS_map_en.svg) (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
biodiversity and reduction in ecosystem services [3,15].
Human and infrastructural impacts include: loss of
homes, human displacement, loss of lives and livelihoods,
economic sector disruption, increased water insecurity,
and disruption to key infrastructure such as transportation
and communication [16–19,88,89].
SIDS have been at the forefront of global discussions on
strong climate mitigation ambition, minimizing the risks
from climate change, and on mechanisms to address loss
and damage. A key framework that has emerged from
these discussions is Comprehensive Risk Management
(CRM) [20]. This framework, advocated for and encour-
aged by the United Nations Executive Committee of the
Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage,
uses 4 approaches: (1) risk assessment, (2) risk reduction, (3)
risk transfer, and (4) risk retention which can be used to
estimate loss and damage avoided by mitigation and
adaptation, as well as residual or unavoidable loss and
damage. Risk assessments provide information on the phys-
ical, socio-economic, economic and environmental
impacts of climate change by characterizing climate
change hazard characteristics, (e.g. intensity, frequency
and likelihood of occurrence), and communities’ expo-
sure and vulnerability to these hazards. Once risks are
assessed, risk reduction can be pursued through structural
measures such as physical structures and nature-based
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
www.sciencedirect.com
 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 247

approaches, and non-structural measures, including early
warning systems, policies, laws, and education. In this
way, information is provided on weather, climate, and
historical losses and vulnerability, uncertainties are
clearly communicated, and decision makers are able to
garner political support, community consensus and active
involvement for adaptation measures. Financial risk aris-
ing from climate change can be transferred through risk
transfer schemes such as insurance and re-insurance con-
tracts and catastrophe bonds to shift the financial con-
sequences of particular risks from one party to another.
Finally, a community or country may choose to explicitly
or implicitly absorb the negative impacts of climate
change through risk retention. For this approach, future
risk has ideally been assessed, minimized and/or trans-
ferred using the 3 previous approaches.
Figure 2 contextualizes the CRM framework for SIDS.
Key hazards relevant to combine with the high exposure of
population and assets in low-lying and/or coastal areas to
produce their risk [3]. This information is needed for risk
assessments and adaptation strategies, including grey or hard
infrastructure such as sea walls, ecosystem-based adaptation,
and soft-measures such as improved building codes and
coastal early warning systems. Limits to adaptation, including
climate limits, are of importance in assessing effectiveness of
adaptation strategies and determining residual impact [15].
Novel methods for risk transfer have been developed by
SIDS, including the world’s first multi-country risk pool to
address catastrophic risk in the Caribbean (https://www.ccrif.
org/). Another financial instrument, contingency finance, is an
approach of risk retention, in which governments set aside
public funds or secure loans for early response and recovery in
the aftermath of a disaster (https://development.
asia/explainer/mobilizing-contingency-funds-climate-
related-disasters), as well as funding social protection mea-
sures to reduce vulnerability. Because of these funding
approaches, social protection measures are simultaneously
risk reduction as well as risk retention measures [21,22]. Risk
retention is inextricably linked to loss and damage: although
risk is reduced and/or transferred, there is still residual nega-
tive impact which must be directly absorbed by the commu-
nity. In many instances, however, communities have not yet
been able to apply the aforementioned approaches before
having to absorb the negative impacts of climate change
which are already occurring, for example, Hurricane Dorian
(2019) in the Bahamas [23], thus increasing the losses and
damages incurred.
In this paper, we highlight emerging topics within the
SLR scientific sphere relevant to SIDS, and use the
comprehensive risk management framework to contextu-
alize these topics to loss and damage. First, we review
components of SLR risk assessment relevant to SIDS,

Figure 2

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Comprehensive Risk Management Framework for Small Island Developing States. This framework highlights the hazards, exposure and
vulnerabilities of SIDS (yellow), means available to SIDS to mitigate risk and the climate limits (green) (based on the IPCC special report on Global
warming of 1.5 C [15]), and the risk retained and loss and damage incurred by SIDS (blue). Ecosystem-based adaptation, a key component of
many SIDS risk-reduction approaches, is vulnerable to global warming and sea-level rise, limiting the effectiveness of these approaches. Source:
authors.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259

248 Slow onset events related to climate change
including the interaction of SLR with other slow-onset
and fast-onset events of climate change; new data on
global vertical elevation estimates and its impact on SLR
projections and coastal populations; and the impact of
near-term climate mitigation on long-term SLR. We
discuss risk reduction approaches to address SLR, includ-
ing different adaptation options. Finally, we assess risk
retention considerations through a review of limits to
adaptation and resultant economic and non-economic
loss and damage that may be experienced by SIDS
due to SLR.
Recent advances in sea level rise research
and their relevance to SIDS
Interaction of sea level rise with other hazards
Hazard characterization is a key component of risk and
vulnerability assessments. Extreme weather, linked to
tropical storms, represent one of the largest risks facing
island nations [15]. Increases in heavy precipitation asso-
ciated with tropical cyclones is expected at 1.5 C warm-
ing, with further increases at higher global temperatures
[15]. Although a decrease in total number of storms is
projected with climate change, the number of those
storms that become intense is expected to increase
[24]. Sea-level rise increases the magnitude and severity
of ESL events that occurs with these storms, leading to
increased frequency and severity of coastal flooding
[25,26]. In a study that highlights the doubling of coastal
flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise,
tropical regions (which includes several SIDS) are
expected to experience the largest increases in coastal
flooding frequency, with the frequency of extreme water-
level events in small islands projected to double by
2050 [27]. Further, ESL events that are historically rare
will become more common under all projections of global
warming, and small islands are expected to experience
such events annually by 2050 [2]. Salinization, another
slow-onset event, is an environmental concern impacting
coastal freshwater supplies that can render water unsuit-
able for urban or agricultural use. Typical sources of
potable water for SIDS communities include groundwa-
ter and surface water which are commonly recharged
during the wetter season of the year. Sea level rise, storms
and changes to precipitation from changes in regional
climate regimes can increase salinization and threaten
these sources, leading to further stress on freshwater
availability [28–31].
There is high confidence that small island states are
particularly at risk from exposure to multiple and com-
pound climate-related risks with increasing global warm-
ing [13]. Compound events refer to the combination of
processes (climate drivers and hazards) leading to a sig-
nificant impact [32]. Although compound events make up
a large portion of economic losses from hydrologic
extremes, they are not often included in flood forecast
projections, disaster risk analyses, and policy frameworks
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
[33]. Traditional risk assessment methods consider
hazards individually, leading to potential underestimation
of risk, insufficient adaptation, and increases in loss and
damage [32]. Physical hazards of particular concern to
SIDS include those of hydrological extremes, including
heavy precipitation and drought; and extreme weather
through tropical cyclones. Application of compound
events within the risk reduction component of a CRM
framework can provide better assessments of risk, and
accompanying economic losses and exposed populations
in coastal regions.
Impact of new global coastal vertical elevation data on
sea-level rise projections
Climate risk and vulnerability assessments addressing
SLR-induced flooding are a key first step in CRM frame-
works to quantify climate risk for SIDS. Accurate esti-
mates of coastal vertical elevation are essential compo-
nents for tools that quantify the extent of current and
future SLR-induced flooding. These estimates are also
fundamental to disaster and climate impact modelling,
which is used to asses economic and non-economic (e.g.
land, impacted population) loss and damage in coastal
regions.
High-accuracy lidar-derived digital elevation models
(DEMs) of coastal vertical elevation can be used by local
scale numerical models to dynamically compute flooding.
However, local-scale models often do not contain the
global processes that contribute to SLR. At the global
scale, global scale numerical models contain several pro-
cesses to accurately compute SLR, but are unable to use
lidar-derived DEM measurements due to their lack of
availability at the global extent. Instead, global-scale
models rely on global satellite-based DEMs such as
NASA’s Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)
dataset to assess coastal flooding from SLR. Error rates
in this dataset are between 1.9 m and 3.7 m in the coastal
zone, larger than any 21st century SLR projections [34].
However in absence of a high-accuracy open-access
global DEM [35,36], this dataset is often applied in
SLR-induced flood modelling.
A new global DEM by Kulp and Strauss [34] (here-
after, KS) developed a corrected form of the SRTM
dataset using neural networking and lidar datasets, and
reduced vertical error in coastal regions to between
0.01 m and 0.11 m. KS was applied to current and
future flooding from SLR to determine potential pop-
ulation exposure to flooding. This analysis used 2 exist-
ing median and rapid projections of SLR [37,38] and
revealed that, globally, up to 310 million more people
at present-day population demographics could be
exposed to annual flooding from SLR by the end of
2100 than projected using the SRTM dataset. The KS
dataset along with updated impact projections reveal
increased land and people vulnerable to coastal
www.sciencedirect.com
 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 249

flooding thus providing an important contribution to
coastal vulnerability and risk assessments.
An assessment of present-day and future SIDS popula-
tions subject to annual average coastal flood levels using
the SRTM dataset and the KS dataset has been included
herein (Table 1). Projections of populations affected by
annual coastal flooding increase with increasing carbon
emission scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5,
respectively). Projections using an SLR model that
account for more unstable ice-sheet dynamics (K17)
reveal an increase in impacted population, with 1.8–3.5
million inhabitants, or up to 5.7% of total SIDS popu-
lation, impacted by coastal flooding by 2100. It is
important to note that not all islands are effected
equally by SLR. In particular, the affected populations
in low-lying islands could be substantially higher than
the percentage projections presented here. For present-
day estimates and future projections, estimates devel-
oped using the KS dataset show higher at-risk popula-
tions than estimates developed using the SRTM
dataset.
A coastal risk screening tool [40] using the KS dataset and
SRTM has been applied herein to compare SLR-induced
coastal flooding for SIDS. Low-lying islands are projected
to experience more land-loss from sea-level rise than
originally estimated using SRTM. Examples using the
Bahamas in the Caribbean (Figure 2) and Funafuti atoll,
Tuvalu in the Pacific revealed increased potential land-
loss, including loss of the entire atoll in the case of Tuvalu
(not shown). Several Pacific Island SIDS have already
experienced increased sea levels and associated land-loss
[17,41]. Using original global datasets such as SRTM,
over 3100 km2 of Caribbean coastal land will be lost due
to sea-level rise from 1.5 C of warming [42]; this number
will only grow as estimates are updated to account for
improved elevation maps such as that of KS. These
increased land-losses pose severe economic and non-
economic risks for SIDS. These increased risks are dis-
cussed in the Section ‘Risk retention: limits to adaptation
and loss and damage’.
Impact of near-term mitigation of climate change on
long term sea level rise
One factor related to SLR that impacts the assessment of
SLR-induced flooding in risk and vulnerability assess-
ments is the effect of mitigation efforts in the near future
on long-term SLR. However, several challenges exist
when trying to assess how the long-term SLR response
is influenced by emission reductions efforts under the
Paris Agreement.
Coastal planning and political decision making in the
context of SLR risk assessments needs to account for
the long time lag between the actual GHG emissions
responsible for near-term warming and the resulting
maximum SLR response (Figure 3). Main SLR drivers,
the expanding oceans and shrinking ice sheets, respond to
a warming atmosphere on time scales of centuries to
millennia (Figure 4) [43]. This means that the true coastal
impacts from SLR will only be felt a long time after
standard planning horizons of decades.
Another challenge for quantifying long-term SLR risk
is posed by the large uncertainties involved in project-
ing long-term SLR. For the year 2300, the IPCC
Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a

Table 1

Estimates of SIDS populations affected by annual average coastal flooding using NASA’s global DEM (SRTM) and the global DEM by Ref.
[34] (KS). Future projections are based on representative sea-level rise models: K14, a probabilistic model, and K17, a non-probabilistic
model that accounts for more rapid SLR through unstable ice-sheet dynamics. Three emission scenarios are considered: RCP2.6, where
warming stays below 2 C by 2100; RCP 4.5, where warming reaches 2.5 C by 2100; and RCP8.5, where warming exceeds 4 C by
2100. Total SIDS population based on 2010 estimates of 62 million. SRTM Source: Refs. [34,39]

Sea level model | emissions KS-based SRTM-based KS-based SRTM-based

scenario | year assessment: affected assessment: affected assessment: affected assessment: affected
population (millions) population (millions) population (%) population (%)
Present day 0.84 0.38 1.35% 0.61%
K14| rcp26| 2050 1 0.46 1.61% 0.74%
K14| rcp26| 2100 1.4 0.54 2.26% 0.87%
K14| rcp45| 2050 1 0.46 1.61% 0.74%
K14| rcp4| 2100 1.5 0.57 2.42% 0.92%
K14| rcp85| 2050 1.1 0.47 1.77% 0.76%
K14| rcp85| 2100 1.8 0.65 2.90% 1.05%
K17| rcp26| 2050 1 0.45 1.61% 0.73%
K17| rcp26| 2100 1.5 0.56 2.42% 0.90%
K17| rcp45| 2050 1.1 0.46 1.77% 0.74%
K17| rcp45| 2100 2.1 0.73 3.39% 1.18%
K17| rcp85| 2050 1.1 0.47 1.77% 0.76%
K17| rcp85| 2100 3.5 1 5.65% 1.61%

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259

250 Slow onset events related to climate change

Figure 3

(a)

Below water level

Current waterbody

(b)

Below water level

Current waterbody

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Land projected to be below annual flood level by 2100 due to annual flooding and sea-level rise (shown in red) in the Bahamas using RCP4.5
probabilistic modelling scenario (K14): (a) based on SRTM digital elevation model dataset; (b) based on KS dataset. Source: Ref. [40].

Changing Climate (SROCC) projected global mean
sea levels to likely rise between 0.6 m and 1.7 m under
the RCP2.6 scenario (likely below 2 C in 2100) and
between 2.3 m and 5.4 m under the RCP8.5 scenario
which captures an unmitigated increase in GHG emis-
sions over the 21st century [2]. The SROCC authors
assigned only low confidence to these estimates mainly
due to an incomplete understanding of processes con-
trolling future ice sheet instabilities, in particular in
Antarctica. It is important to note, however, that the
existing uncertainties for SLR projections mainly
encompass unknown drivers that would significantly

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259 www.sciencedirect.com

 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 251

Figure 4 increase the SLR estimates. Hence, long-term SLR

trajectories can often be understood as rather conser-
vative estimates.
(a)
The long-term horizon of SLR cannot be understated.
Clark et al. [44] have shown that global sea levels will rise
well beyond the end of the 21st century, for millennia,
highlighting the ‘essentially permanent anthropogenic
interference with the climate system’ (Figure 5, repro-
duced from Ref. [44]). In this work, models suggest 2 m
of SLR per degree of warming over millennial timescales.
Because of the long-term horizon of SLR, the authors
advocate that Global Mean Sea Level Rise (GMSLR) can
provide a useful indicator, alongside global mean tem-
perature, for setting emissions limits to meet the Paris
Agreement and avoid dangerous anthropogenic interfer-
ence with the climate system.

(b)
Nevertheless, scientific progress has been made in quan-
tifying the long-term SLR commitment caused by emis-
sions to date as well as by the currently pledged emission
reductions under the UNFCCC until 2030, better known
as the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
(e.g. Figure 4). Recent research suggests that greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions between the years 1750 and
2030 will result in a global mean SLR commitment of
about 1 m by 2300 [45]. The currently pledged NDC
emissions from 2016 to 2030 would be responsible for
around one fifth or 0.2 m of that 2300 SLR commitment.
Nauels et al. [45] also found that emissions shares from the
top emitting countries can be directly translated into
sizeable 2300 SLR contributions: 26 cm (12 cm) of the
projected 2300 SLR commitment caused by GHG emis-
sions between 1750 and 2030 would be caused by the top
(c) five emitting countries (China, United States of America,
European Union, India, and Russia) over the 1991–2030
(2016–2030) period alone.

The attribution of long-term SLR commitments to

historical and pledged GHG emissions shows how
crucial strong near-term mitigation efforts in line with
the Paris Agreement are for limiting SLR risks in
vulnerable coastal regions, such as SIDS. Secondly
and crucially, it highlights the inevitability of future
coastal adaptation needs and points to the necessity of
expanding the scope of Loss and Damage assessments
to reflect the substantial SLR the world is already
committed to.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Projections of local Sea-level Rise (cm) until 2200 for SIDS: (a)
Bahamas, (b) Maldives, and (c) Kiribati. Source: Climate Analytics
local Sea-Level projections tool (http://localslr.climateanalytics.org/).
Recent approaches to address sea level rise
Once risk has been assessed, risk reduction and risk transfer
can be pursued to offset negative impacts. Several major
lines of responses to reduce the risks posed by SLR have
emerged. All of these responses are associated with trade-

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259

252 Slow onset events related to climate change

Figure 5

(a) (b)
GMSL (m)

GMSL (m)

Cumulative CO2 emissions (GtC) Cumulative CO2 emissions (GtC)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

GMSL as a function of cumulative carbon emissions. (a) GMSL at five future time points for cumulative carbon emissions (relative to the pre-
industrial) of between 450 and 1000 GtC. The 2100 ce scenario is based on four RCPs, with cumulative emissions beginning at 830 GtC. The
black line and colour envelope represent mean sea level and 1s uncertainties. The 2300 ce, 3000 ce, 4000 ce and 9000 ce scenarios are from
Clark and colleagues, with black lines and colour envelopes representing polynomial fits and uncertainty (1s) (b) GMSL at five future time points
for cumulative carbon emissions (relative to the pre-industrial) of between 1000 and 5600 GtC. The 2300 ce scenario is based on four RCPs, with
a maximum value of 5470 GtC. The black line and colour envelope represent mean sea level and 1s uncertainty. The 2500 ce, 3000 ce, 4000 ce
and 9000 ce scenarios are as shown in (a) coloured circles represent model results. Vertical grey bars identify cumulative emissions for several
scenarios from the literature. Vertical bars to the right of (b) show the spread in GMSLR for the two simulations with the Bern3D-LPX model for
uncertainty in ECS values ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 C, which the IPCC assessed as the likely range (66–100% probability). Source: Ref. [44].

offs and co-benefits, which may vary for different systems
and groups concerned, and need to take into account
different considerations for their viability and effective-
ness for specific purposes. Further, responses to SLR and
climate change are not without risk, including that of
maladaptation — action taken to avoid or reduce vulner-
ability to climate change that impacts adversely on, or
increases the vulnerability of, the same or other systems,
sectors or social groups [46,47].
The majority of measures aim at protecting coastal areas
and assets against the impacts of SLR, allowing for
continued activity and use in impacted areas. Largely,
such measures can be distinguished into grey or hard
measures, focused on hard engineering interventions
as well as nature-based solutions. A second group of
responses focuses on accommodating impacts, for exam-
ple by elevating buildings (e.g. Refs. [48,49]). Finally,
retreat as a response is gaining prominence in discus-
sions, especially in the context of accelerating warming
and associated increasing SLR rates. Retreat can range
from defining setback distances for coastal to develop-
ment to relocation [50]. Relocation and planned retreat
as last resort responses are associated with severe
disruptive impacts on the affected communities, and
are often also considered as risk retention and loss and
damage [51].
The most commonly documented approaches for coastal
protection in terms of hard infrastructure include mea-
sures such as seawalls and breakwaters [52,53]. While
their primary goal of dissipating wave energy and thus
protecting specific stretches of coast (e.g. critical infra-
structure and coastal assets) from erosion and damage,
there are trade-offs associated with such approaches.
Because of the deflected wave energy, patterns of erosion
and deposition are disrupted, leading to potential damage
of unprotected shoreline and bottom erosion, as well as
negative impacts on marines and terrestrial ecosystems
[54–56]. Generally, such response offer the highest level
of protection for specific assets, however, they also come

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259 www.sciencedirect.com

 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 253

Table 2

Responses to address SLR and their characteristics

Response type Examples of Barriers Success factors and Planning horizons Limits
specific enabling conditions
responses
Protection – hard Disrupted sedimentation Prohibitive costs
[54,64,55,56] and erosion patterns; (including maintenance)
damage to other parts of linked to economic,
the coast; negative financial and social
Knowledge of Functional barriers;
seawalls; impacts on ecosystems;
environmental context; lifetimes of up to Technical limits are
breakwaters increasing uncertainty
scenario analysis 50–200 years; expected to be reached
across longer
timescales. Financial under high emission
burden and maintenance scenarios (RCP8.5)
costs
Protection – soft beach Negative impacts on Consideration of Functional Increases in extreme and
[64,68] nourishment, ecosystem and water ecosystem properties lifetime of 1 10 unprecedented events
strengthened quality; limited lifetime and adjusting planning years
building code Governance (including (e.g. sediment type,
compliance) Trade-offs avoid animal activity
with short-term phase)
development priorities
Protection – NBS and coral reef Limitations in protection Other environmental Lifetime depends Biophysical limits related
EbA [63,55,56] restoration, against major flood stressors important on structure and to temperature, SLR, and
mangroves events and higher levels determinant of future SLR rate acidification are
of warming ecosystem functioning (mitigation increasingly likely during
pathway) the 21st century as
warming increases.
Space and competing
land uses Increases in
extreme events leading
to catastrophic events
Accommodation [69] raised buildings Limitations in protection Household-level Lifetime depends Increases in extreme and
against major flood adaptation: awareness, on structure and unprecedented events
events and higher levels perceived responsibility; future SLR rate
of warming; resources available resources (mitigation
availability and pathway)
responsibility (individual
versus government)
Retreat [51,50] Planned retreat as Space and resource
Loss of property; cultural constraints through
setback Set-back effective in a potentially
values and identity; limited land availability
distances; conjunction with other irreversible, last
livelihoods; territorial Complete land-loss at
planned retreat protective measures; resort response
integrity higher levels of SLR
option
Early warning systems tsunami, flood, No protection as such, Thorough underlying Rapid intensification or
[67,66] hurricanes, protective effect assessment and stalling of tropical
drought, fires, depends on response adequate response time cyclones can exacerbate
heat waves time and quality and options; adaptive impacts, leading to future
design to incorporate credibility issues
changes

with the highest costs, trade-offs and side-effects (see
Table 2).
Nature-based solutions (NbS) and Ecosystem-based
Adaptation (EbA) have been demonstrated to protect
communities and infrastructure from the impacts of cli-
mate change while providing several co-benefits [57,58].
In the case of SIDS, EbA and NbS actions of interest rely
on coral reef and mangrove systems for coastal protection
services. Coral reefs dissipate waves and protect shore-
lines, while mangroves reduce inland flooding and reduce
impacts of high winds during storms [59,60]. Several low-
income and middle-income countries, which include
several SIDS, have favoured NBS and EbA over
engineered actions because of lower costs, economic
co-benefits in sectors such as tourism and fisheries; and
a broader desire to shift toward so-called blue economies
(https://www.nbspolicyplatform.org/adaptation-planning/
adaptation-action-types/) [61].
While hard structural measures have been traditionally
pursued to protect against impacts, these can require

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259

254 Slow onset events related to climate change
substantial financial investments and must be carefully
evaluated in the light of competing demands and limited
resources, as well as negative environmental conse-
quences [62,63,56]. Consideration of planning horizons
and future effectiveness of options is essential in coastal
adaptation planning to avoid maladaptation, as functional
lifetimes for hard protection measures can last from 50 to
200 years and thus would have to able to protect against a
range of possible futures [64,53]. Hard structural mea-
sures are at risk of maladaptation practice because they
may encourage development in high-risk areas, thus
increasing exposure, vulnerability, and increases losses
in case of structural failure [46].
Coastal early warning systems (CEWS) [65,66] as well as
dynamic adaptive policy pathways (DAPP) [67] can play
an important role in an integrated response to the
dynamic impacts posed by both, slow and rapid onset
coastal hazards. CEWS as well as DAPP serve as an
important additional component in coastal climate change
adaptation, providing additional perspectives to address
issues of prioritization and decision-making under uncer-
tainty as well as limited resources [67]. CEWS provide
risk-managers and responders the opportunity to alert and
evacuate exposed vulnerable groups and mobile assets
out of harm’s way in the case of approaching coastal
storms, thus reducing the losses incurred.
Risk retention: limits to adaptation and loss
and damage
While there are a number of options available to reduce
risks from SLR, SIDS face barriers and limits to adapta-
tion which have led to current impacts and projections of
increased loss and damage [70]. Risk retention is a
reality that many SIDS are already contending with,
whether by choice or more commonly, through an inabil-
ity to provide comprehensive protection with limited
resources [71]. Coastal protection against SLR is an
expensive undertaking, with the annual costs of such
protection projected to amount to several percent of
GDP annually for some SIDS [2]. As SLR impacts
increase with global temperatures and adaptation options
reach their limits, retention of risk will likely continue in
SIDS.
For small islands with low elevations, limited land avail-
ability presents a critical limit to adaptation [72]. The lack
of land elevated above levels of coastal flooding means
that many SIDS are already facing inundation and may
actually find themselves below sea level. This potential
loss of land to rising seas is one of the key components of
the ‘existential threat’ that climate change poses for
SIDS, as entire islands have already been lost due to
SLR and many are experiencing severe coastal erosion
[17,41]. Limited elevated land also limits the ability of
communities to retreat to higher ground, a response to
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
SLR that is itself fraught with social, economic and
ethical challenges [2].
Ecosystem-based adaptation has been lauded as provid-
ing protection from SLR in SIDS while also offering co-
benefits including carbon sequestration and supporting
biodiversity [61]. These ecosystems are themselves,
however, severely impacted by climate change, limiting
their temporal horizons to provide such services in a
warmer climate [15]. For example, coral reef conservation
and restoration is only effective if SLR rates are limited to
less than 0.5 cm/yr and is further constrained by ocean
warming and acidification. Even at 1.5 C of global warm-
ing, up to 90% of coral reefs are highly likely to decline
[15]. The loss of coral reefs themselves is a significant
form of loss and damage for SIDS while also resulting in a
limit to the coastal protection that such ecosystem-based
adaptation provides. Mangroves, another key ecosystem
providing coastal protection and critical habitat for juve-
nile fish, may be able to keep up with SLR through the
end of the 21st century at low emissions scenarios
(RCP2.6) using vertical surface elevation changes, but
will become submerged by mid-21st to late-21st century
if global emissions are higher [73]. Furthermore, man-
groves can experience widespread damage and diebacks
from hurricanes and fluctuating sea levels [74,75], limiting
their effectiveness in cases of consecutive extreme
events. Finally, environmental pressures on ecosystems,
such as pollution and human development, have an
impact on the viability of such systems to provide the
anticipated protective services [76].
Built infrastructure, such as seawalls and dikes, also has
limits. This form of adaptation is costly, particularly for
islands with long coastlines that need protection [2]. For
areas without highly valued assets, built infrastructure may
not be viewed as a cost effective measure. Additionally,
seawalls in particular have a number of drawbacks including
negative impacts on biodiversity and livelihoods that have
already been experienced in the SIDS context [77]. Thus,
built infrastructure may only be an effective option in urban
and densely populated areas where the drawbacks of this
approach will also need to be addressed. The options space
available to respond to sea-level rise strongly depends on
mitigation ambition and the associated long-term sea-level
rise (see Section ‘Impact of near-term mitigation of climate
change on long term sea level rise’). High-end scenarios
however, associated with much higher rates of change and
consequent sea-levels, will severely limit the option space
available.
Table 3 provides country-specific examples of occurring
or potential economic and non-economic loss and damage
in SIDS. Global damage projections from SLR-induced
flooding range between US$10.2trillion (1.8% of global
GDP) by 2100 under a strong emissions mitigation tra-
jectory to U.S. $14.3trillion by 2100 for a trajectory with
www.sciencedirect.com
 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 255

Table 3

Country-specific examples (event given in parentheses) of current or potential economic and non-economic loss and damage in SIDS
impacted by or attributable to SLR. References are provided in brackets

Country (Event)
Bahamas (Tropical Cyclone
Dorian, 2019) [85]
Dominica (Tropical Cyclone
Maria, 2017) [86,87]
Solomon Islands (SLR, coastal
erosion) [17,16]
Federated States of Micronesia
(rapid SLR, storms) [16]
Seychelles (future impacts of
SLR, coastal hazards, and
extreme weather events) [19]
Economic losses and damages
 US$2.5B in damages
 US$717M in losses
 Estimated event impact: 1% GDP
 US$931M in damages
 US$380M in losses:
 Estimated event impact: 226% GDP
 50% house loss already occurred
 Atoll loss or reduction in size in reef-edged
islands occurred
 Projected building loss
 Projected loss of key transportation and
communication infrastructure
 Potential losses in fisheries and tourism
sectors
Non-economic losses and damages
 67 fatalities, 282 missing
 30 000 people impacted
 Displacement, internal and external migration
 31 fatalities, 37 missing
 65 000 people (80% of total pop.) impacted
 Displacement, internal and external migration
 55–62% land loss over 20th century (Hetaheta,
Sogomou)
 100% island loss occurred (Kale, Rapita, northern
Solomon Islands)
 Forced relocation
 Loss of burial sites
 7300 people impacted (7% of total pop.)
Not assessed

minimal emissions mitigation [8], and losses of hundreds
of thousands of culturally and archeological significant
resources [78]. Depending on the adaptation methods
applied, global economic losses from SLR-induced flood-
ing are reduced to 0.02% and 0.1% of global GDP by 2050,
and 0.15% and 5% of global GDP by 2100 [8,9,11].
Economic losses by 2100 are expectedly higher in low-to
middle income countries at 0.2%–0.5% of GDP, than
middle to high-income countries (0.1%–0.2%) due to
constraints, barriers, and limits to adaptation [8]. The
cost of damage to critical infrastructure as a percentage of
GDP due to SLR is expected to be highest in SIDS and
result in additional economic loss and damage including
decline in national outputs, increasing levels of debt, loss
of revenue from critical sectors such as tourism and loss of
livelihoods [79].
Non-economic losses associated with SLR that are
already being experienced in SIDS include changes to
traditional burial practices to protect burial sites from
inundation [77] and alterations and reductions in social
and recreational activities due to erosion of beaches [80],
shown in Table 3. Non-economic losses in SIDS incurred
from extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones
Dorian, Irma, and Maria, whose impacts were increased
by climate change [81,82], include loss of lives, displace-
ment, forced internal and international migration, and
educational disruption of children, also shown in
Table 3. Examples from the Pacific Islands of planned
[83] or forced [84] relocation from climate change-related
impacts highlight the significant social and cultural chal-
lenges, along with financial and political barriers, of
human mobility and migration, placing this topic at the
intersection of adaptation response and loss and damage
[18].
Current risk assessment methods focus on quantifiable
metrics to assess negative impacts of natural disasters of
climate change, for example, economic metrics such as
%GDP loss or sector impacts, and non-economic yet
countable metrics such as loss of life or impacted house-
holds. These approaches are useful for risk assessments
or analyses of tradeoffs in adaptation, yet this may bias
decision-makers against non-quantifiable aspects of
loss. A novel systematic analysis of climate-related
non-economic loss and damage has characterized values
important in people’s lives likely to be subject to
intangible (‘non-economic’) harm from climate change
[6]. Twenty values, such as ‘human mobility’, ‘culture,
lifestyle, traditions, and heritage’, ‘self-determination and
influence’, ‘dignity’, and ‘territory’ were quantified using
numerous case studies, and the harm experienced was
geographically illustrated. In regions where SIDS are
located, that is, the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans,
the majority of case studies showed that people catego-
rized the harm they experienced from climate change as
loss or damage, with 100% of Caribbean case studies
categorized the harm experienced as damage, and 75% of
Indian ocean case studies as damage or loss. SLR was
shown to be a climate stressor that people linked to the
loss, damage or risk of almost all values in the study.
SLR was noticeably linked to the damage of ‘culture,
lifestyle, traditions and heritage’, ‘social fabric’, ‘human
mobility’, ‘mental and emotional well-being’, and

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259

256 Slow onset events related to climate change
‘sense of place’, among others. Such an analysis brings
forward which losses and/or damages matter most to
people and why, provides opportunity to discuss
whether or not such losses are considered acceptable
and potentially reversible, and offers a new lens in
which to look at loss and damage.
Conclusion
Small Island Developing States are already experience
the effects of climate change and associated loss and
damage. Losses and damages have been economic, as
countries note losses/damages of several % of GDP, loss
of income, and loss of infrastructure and homes. Non-
economic loss and damage is also experienced, through
loss of life, human displacement, and loss of key cultural
sites and land. Because of the high concentration of
people, assets, and infrastructure located in SIDS coastal
areas, significant (though not all) loss and damage has
been experienced in the coastal zone. Sea-level rise, one
aspect of climate change impacting SIDS, is shown to
contribute to the impacts of coastal hazards, endanger
fragile water supplies, and compound with other hazards
to pose century-long challenges to adaptation. This
review assesses recent scientific findings on SLR relevant
to SIDS. Key findings include: increased scientific under-
standing of the interaction of sea-level rise with other
hazards experienced by SIDS, including coastal flooding
frequency, storm surge, and salinization of coastal aqui-
fers; improvements in SLR projections used for climate
risk and vulnerability assessments, with applications for
SIDS; and the long timescales of SLR and its implications
for adaptation.
The Comprehensive Risk Management Framework,
supported by the Warsaw International Mechanism for
Loss and Damage, provides a mechanism to quantify risk
through assessments, and for risk reduction, transfer, and
retention — an approach linked to loss and damage due to
the residual impacts that are absorbed by communities.
Risk assessments should account for sea-level rise in
characterizing climate change hazard characteristics,
(e.g. intensity, frequency and likelihood of occurrence),
and communities’ exposure and vulnerability to these
hazards. Risk can be reduced through socio-economic
pathways that support diverse and robust economies;
strong climate mitigation action to reduce the extent of
climate change; and governance structures that are able to
develop short-term recovery plans, and medium and long-
term resilience strategies to cope with and adapt to
climate change impacts.
Through the application of a comprehensive risk frame-
work, sufficient preparation, adequate funding, and
diverse physically and culturally appropriate adaptation
options, SIDS policy-makers can reduce and transfer
climate risk. However, some risk is retained, even under
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
ideal scenarios. Many SIDS contend with risk retention
due to limited resources, multiple occurring hazards that
stymy recovery efforts, and limited adaptation options
that cater to the physical and cultural landscapes of
SIDS. Further, effective adaptation options are reduced
with higher levels of global warming, thus imposing
adaptation needs onto SIDS with significant financial
and technological barriers, and resulting in increased loss
and damage. Even in this light, the framework can be
useful, along with loss and damage assessments and post-
disaster needs assessments, to quantify the extent and
costs of loss and damage for SIDS.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
Acknowledgement
R.M.-K., A.T. A.N., C-F S. and T.K. were supported by the German
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear
Safety.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Slow
Onset Events. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations; 2012.
2. IPCC: Summary for policymakers. IPCC Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 2019.
3. IPCC: Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands,
coasts and communities. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 2019.
4. Zaidi RZ: Beyond the Sendai indicators: application of a
cascading risk lens for the improvement of loss data
indicators for slow-onset hazards and small-scale disasters.
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2018, 30:306-314.
5. Roberts E, Andrei S: The rising tide: migration as a response to
 loss and damage from sea level rise in vulnerable
communities. Int J Glob Warming 2015, 8:16.
The authors define loss and damage in both economic and non-econe-
conomic contexts, and discuss human mobility and migration in the
contexts of climate adaptation and loss and damage.
6. Tschakert P, Ellis N, Anderson C, Kelly A, Obeng J: One thousand
 ways to experience loss: a systematic analysis of climate-
related intangible harm from around the world. Glob Environ
Change 2019, 55:58-72.
The authors centralize the lived experience with risk and harm to system-
atically identify intangible, noncommensurable (in our work referred to as
non-economic) loss in the context of climate change. This work provides
a quantitative analysis of perceptions of risk, loss and damage, and can
provide a novel framework for decision-making to address loss and
damage.
7. Serdeczny O, Bauer S, Huq S: Non-economic losses from
climate change: opportunities for policy-oriented research.
Clim Dev 2018, 10:97-101.
8. Jevrejeva S, Jackson L, Grinstead A, Lincke D, Marzeion B: Flood
damage costs under the sea level rise with warming of 1.5 C
and 2 C. Environ Res Lett 2018, 13:11.
9. Hinkel J, Lincke D, Vafeldis A, Perrette M, Nicholls R, Tol R,
Marzeion B, Fettweis X, Ionescu C, Levermann A: Coastal flood
damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level
rise. PNAS 2014, 111:3292-3297.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 257
10. McMichael C, Dasgupta S, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Kelma I: A review of
 estimating population exposure to sea-level rise and the
relevance for migration. Environ Res Lett 2020, 15:123005.
The authors analyze global population exposure to SLR and related
hazards. These estimates are linked to human migration, a theme that
lies at the intersection of climate change adaptation, and non-economic
loss and damage.
11. Schinko T, Drouet L, Vrontosi Z, Hinkel J, Mochizuki J, Bosetti V,
 Fragkiadakis K, van Vuuren D, Lincke D: Economy-wide effects
of coastal flooding due to sea level rise: a multi-model
simultaneous treatment of mitigation, adaptation, and
residual impacts. Environ Res Commun 2020, 2:015002.
The authors provide a macroeconomic impact assessment of coastal
flooding due to SLR from low to medium projections of global warming.
The work shows that even under ‘Full SLR adaptation’, unavoidable
economic losses will be incurred, with losses of 0.1% of global GDP
by 2050.
12. Rhiney K, Baptiste A: Adapting to climate change in the
Caribbean: existential threat or development crossroads?
Caribb Stud 2019, 47:59-80.
13. Thomas A, Baptiste A, Martyr-Koller R, Pringle P, Rhioney K:
 Climate change and small island developing states. Annu Rev
Environ Resour 2020, 45:1-27.
The authors perform a comprehensive literature review of the relationship
between SIDS and climate change, covering impacts and risks, mitigation
and adaptation, loss and damage, and climate justice.
14. Jackson L, Grinsted A, Jevrejeva S: 21st century sea-level rise in
line with the Paris accord. Earth’s Future 2018, 6:213-229.
15. IPCC: Global Warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the
Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 C above Pre-industrial Levels
and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways. IPCC;
2018.
16. Ferris E, Cernea M, Petz D: On the Front Line of Climate Change
and Displacement: Learning from and with Pacific Island Countries.
Brookings Institution - London School of Economics; 2011.
17. Albert S, Leon J, Grinham A, Church J, Gibbes B, Woodroffe C:
Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef
island dynamics in the Solomon islands. Environ Res Lett 2016,
11:054011.
18. Pill M: Planned relocation from the impacts of climate change
in small island developing states: the intersection between
adaptation and loss and damage. Managing Climate Change
Adaptation in the Pacific Region. Climate Change Management.
Cham: Springer; 2020, 129-149.
19. GIVRAPD: Policy brief lessons from Seychelles:
addressing climate change vulnerability through
integrated coastal planning and micro-finance. Global
Islands’ Vulnerability Research Adaptation Policy and
Development. 2015.
20. Executive committee of the Warsaw international mechanism
 for loss and damage. Compendium on Comprehensive Risk
Management Approaches. UN; 2019.
The authors develop a risk management framework that aims to assess,
reduce, and transfer risk, thus minimizing the risk retained by commu-
nities and/or countries. This framework is a key component used by the
UN to characterize risk and the residual impacts of climate change.
21. Aleksandrova M: Social Protection as a Tool to Address Slow
Onset Climate Events: Emerging Issues for Research and Policy.
Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik gGmbH; 2019.
22. Cubas D, Gunasekera R, Humber T: Guidance Note: Disaster Risk
Finance for Adaptive Social Protection. Washington, DC:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The
World Bank; 2020.
23. Zegarra M, Schmid J, Malomino L, Seminario B: Impact of
Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas: A View from the Sky. Inter-
American Development Bank; 2020.
24. Kossin J, Knapp K, Olander T, Velden C: Global increase in major
tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four
decades. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 2020, 117:11975-11980.
25. Rasmussen D, Bittermann K, Buchanan M, Kulp S, Strauss B,
Kopp R, Oppenheimer M: Extreme sea level implications of
www.sciencedirect.com
1.5 C, 2.0 C, and 2.5 C temperature stabilization targets in the
21st and 22nd centuries. Environ Res Lett 2018, 13:034040.
26. Marsooli R, Lin N, Emanuel K et al.: Climate change exacerbates
hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in
spatially varying patterns. Nat Commun 2019, 10.
27. Vitousek S, Barnard P, Fletcher C, Frazer N, Erikson L,
Storlazzi CD: Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within
decades due to sea-level rise. Nat Sci Rep 2017, 7.
28. Oberle F, Swarzenski P, Storlazzi C: Atoll groundwater
movement and its response to climatic and sea-level
fluctuations. Water 2017, 9:650.
29. Storlazzi C, Gingerich S, van Dongeren A, Cheriton O,
Swarzenski PW: Most atolls will be uninhabitable by the mid-
21st century because of sea-level rise exacerbating wave-
driven flooding. Sci Adv 2018, 4:4.
30. Yu M, Rivera-Ocasio E, Heartsill-Scalley T, Davila-Casanova D,
Rios-Lopez N, Gao Q: Landscape-level consequences of rising
sea-level on coastal wetlands: saltwater intrusion drives
displacement and mortality in the twenty-first century.
Wetlands 2019, 39:1343-1355.
31. Ketabchi H, Mahmoodzadeh D, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Simmons C:
Sea-level rise impacts on seawater intrusion in coastal
aquifers: review and integration. J Hydrol 2016, 535:235-255.
32. Zscheischler J, Westra S, van den Hurk B et al.: Future climate
risk from compound events. Nat Clim Change 2018, 8:469-477.
33. Wahl T, Ward P, Winsemius H, AghaKouchak A, Bender J, Haigh I,
Jain S, Leonard M, Veldkamp T, Westra S: When environmental
forces collide. Eos 2018, 99.
34. Kulp S, Strauss B: New elevation data triple estimates of global
 vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat
Commun 2019, 10.
The authors develop a new digital elevation model (DEM) that significantly
reduced the vertical error on a popularly used DEM (SRTM) for coastal
flooding projections. Application of this new DEM in coastal flood models
revealed one billion people now occupy land less than 10 m above current
high tide lines, and triples the number of people at risk from annual
flooding from sea level rise by 2100, compared to flood estimates using
the SRTM model.
35. Schuman GJ-P, Bates P: The need for a high-accuracy, open-
access global DEM. Front Earth Sci 2018, 6.
36. Laurence H, Bates P, Neal J, Jonathan R: Perspectives on Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) simulation for flood modeling in the
absence of a high-accuracy open access global DEM. Front
Earth Sci 2018, 6:233.
37. Kopp R, Horton R, Little C, Mitrovica J, Oppenheimer M,
Rasmussen D, Strauss B, Tebaldi C: Probabilistic 21st and 22nd
century sea-level projections at a global network tide-gauge
sites. Earth’s Future 2014, 2:383-406.
38. Kopp R, DeConto R, Bader D, Hay C, Horton R, Kulp S,
Oppenheimer M, Pollard D, Strauss B: Evolving understanding of
Antarctic ice-sheet physics and ambiguity in probabilistic sea-
level projections. Earth’s Future 2017, 5:1217-1233.
39. Climate Central: Flooded Future: Global Vulnerability to Sea Level
Rise Worse than Previously Understood. Climate Central; 2019.
40. Climate Central: Coastal Risk Screening Tool. Climate Central;
2020. Available: https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/.
[Accessed 1 May 2020].
41. Nunn P, Kohler A, Kumar R: Identifying and assessing evidence
for recent shoreline change attributable to uncommonly rapid
sea-level rise in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia,
Northwest Pacific Ocean. J Coast Conserv 2017, 21:719-730.
42. Mycoo M: Beyond 1.5 C: vulnerabilities and adaptation
strategies for Caribbean Small Island Developing States. Reg
Environ Change 2018, 18:2341-2353.
43. Clark P, Shakun JD, Marcott SA, Mix AC, Eby M, Kulp S et al.:
Consequences of twenty-first century policy for multi-
millennial climate and sea-level change. Nat Clim Change 2016,
6:360-369.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
258 Slow onset events related to climate change
44. Clark P, Mix A, Eby M, Levermann A, Rogelj J, Nauels A,
 Wrathall D: Sea-level commitment as a gauge for climate
policy. Nat Clim Change 2018, 8:653-655.
These authors show that global sea levels will rise well beyond the end of
the 21st century, for millennia, with models that suggest 2 m of SLR per
degree of warming over millennial timescales.
45. Nauels A, Gütschow J, Mengel M, Meinshausen M, Clark P,
Schleussner C-F: Attributing long-term sea-level rise to Paris
agreement emission pledges. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 2019,
116:6.
46. Barnett J, O’Neill S: Minimising the risk of maladaptation: a
framework for analysis. Climate Adaptation Futures. 2013.
47. Lang A: weADAPT. . 8 Jan 2019. Available: https://www.weadapt.
org/knowledge-base/vulnerability/maladaptation-an-
introduction. [Accessed 26 April 2021] 2021.
48. Esteban M, Jamero M, Nurse L, Yamamoto L, Takagi H, Thao N,
Shibayama T: Adaptation to sea level rise on low coral islands:
lessons from recent events. Ocean Coastal Manage 2018,
168:35-40.
49. Reguero BG, Beck MW, Bresch DN, Calil J, Meliane I: Comparing
the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal
adaptation: a case study from the gulf coast of the United
States. PLoS One 2018, 13:1-24.
50. Lincke D, Wolff C, Hinkel J, Vafeidis A, Blickensdörfer L, Povh
Skugor D: The effectiveness of setback zones for adapting to
sea-level rise in Croatia. Reg Environ Change 2020, 20.
51. Dannenberg AL, Frumkin H, Hess JJ, Ebi KL: Managed retreat as a
strategy for climate change adaptation in small communities:
public health implications. Clim Change 2019, 153:1-14.
52. de Almeida B, Mostafavi A: Resilience of infrastructure systems
to sea-level rise in coastal areas: impacts, adaptation
measures, and implementation challenges. Sustainability
(Switzerland) 2016, 8.
53. Haasnoot M, Brown S, Scussolini P, Jimenez JA, Vafeidis AT,
Nicholls RJ: Generic adaptation pathways for coastal
archetypes under uncertain sea-level rise. Environ Res Lett
2019, 1:071006.
54. Airoldi L, Abbiati M, Beck MW, Hawkins SJ, Jonsson PR, Martin D,
Moschella PS, Sundelöf A, Thompson RC, Åberg P: An ecological
perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and
other hard coastal defense structures. Coastal Eng 2005,
52:1073-1087.
55. Johnston RJ, Makriyannis C, Whelchel AW: Using ecosystem
service values to evaluate tradeoffs in coastal hazard
adaptation. Coastal Manage 2018, 46:259-277.
56. Rangel-Buitrago N, Williams AT, Anfuso G: Hard protection
structures as a principal coastal erosion management
strategy along the Caribbean coast of Colombia. A chronicle
of pitfalls. Ocean Coastal Manage 2018, 156:58-75.
57. Seddon N, Daniels E, Davis R, Chausson A, Harris R, Hou-Jones X,
Huq S, Kapos V, Mace G, Rizvi A, Reid H, Roe D, Turner B,
Wicander S: Global recognition of the importance of nature-
based solutions to the impacts of climate change. Global
Sustain 2020, 3:12.
58. Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin A, Smith A, Turner B:
Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions
to climate change and other global challenges. Philos Trans B
2020, 375:12.
59. Reguero B, Beck M, Agostini V, Kramer P, Hancock B: Coral reefs
for coastal protection: a new methodological approach and
engineering case study in Grenada. J Environ Manage 2018,
21:146-161.
60. Guannel G, Arkema K, Ruggiero P, Verutes G: The power of three:
coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves protect coastal
regions and increase their resilience. PLoS One 2016, 11:22.
61. Nalau J, Becken S, Schliephack J, Parsons M, Brown C,
 Mackey B: The role of indigenous and traditional knowledge in
ecosystem-based adaptation: a review of the literature and
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259
case studies from the Pacific Islands. Weather Clim Soc 2018,
10:851-865.
The authors show that Ecosystem-based Adaptation (also known as
Nature-based Solutions) has been lauded as providing protection from
SLR in SIDS while also offering co-benefits including carbon sequestra-
tion and supporting biodiversity.
62. Cooper J, McKenna J: Working with natural processes: the
challenge for coastal protection strategies. Geog J 2008,
174:315-331.
63. Ferrario F, Beck MW, Storlazzi CD, Micheli F, Shepard CC,
Airoldi L: The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard
risk reduction and adaptation. Nat Commun 2014, 5:1-9.
64. Haasnoot M, Kwadijk J, Alphen JV, Bars DL, Hurk BVD,
Diermanse F, Spek AVD, Essink GO, Delsman J, Mens M:
Adaptation to uncertain sea level rise; how uncertainty in
Antarctic mass-loss impacts the coastal adaptation strategy
of the Netherlands. Environ Res Lett 2020, 15:034007.
65. Harley MD, Valentini A, Armaroli C, Perini L, Calabrese L, Ciavola P:
Can an early-warning system help minimize the impacts of
coastal storms? A case study of the 2012 halloween storm,
northern Italy. Nat Hazards Earth System Sci 2016, 16:209-222.
66. Winter G, Storlazzi C, Vitousek S, van Dongeren A, McCall R,
Hoeke R, Skirving W, Marra J, Reyns J, Aucan J, Widlansky M,
Becker J, Perry C, Masselink G, Lowe R, Ford M, Pomeroy A,
Mendez F, Rueda A, Wandres M: Steps to developing early
warning systems and future scenarios of storm wave
driven flooding along coral reef-lined coasts. Front Mar Sci
2020, 7:1-8.
67. Stephens SA, Bell RG, Lawrence J: Developing signals to trigger
adaptation to sea-level rise. Environ Res Lett 2018, 13.
68. Speybroeck J, Bonte D, Courtens W, Gheskiere T, Grootaert P,
Maelfait JP, Mathys M, Provoost S, Sabbe K, Stienen E, van
Lancker V, Vincx M, Degraer S: Beach nourishment: an
ecologically sound coastal defence alternative? A reivew.
Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2006, 16:419-435.
69. Koerth J, Valefidis A, Hinkel J: Household-level coastal
adaptation and its drivers: a systematic case study review.
Risk Anal 2017, 37:629-646.
70. Robinson S: Climate change adaptation limits in small island
 developing states. Limits to Climate Change Adaptation. Cham:
Springer; 2018, 263-281.
The author highlights the barriers and limits to adaptation that Small
Island Developing States (SIDS) face, which have led to current impacts
and projections of increased loss and damage.
71. Rhiney K, Baptiste A: Adapting to climate change in the
Caribbean: existential threat or development crossroads?
Caribb Stud 2019, 47:59-80.
72. McNamara KE, Westoby R, Smithers SG: Identification of limits
and barriers to climate change adaptation: case study of two
islands in Torres Strait, Australia. Geog Res 2017, 55:438-455.
73. Sasmito S, Murdiyarso D, Friess D, Kurnianto S: Can mangroves
keep pace with contemporary sea level rise? A global data
review. Wetlands Ecol Manage 2016, 24:263-278.
74. Lovelock C, Feller I, Reef R, Hickey S, Ball M: Mangrove dieback
during fluctuating sea levels. Sci Rep 2017, 7.
75. Taillie P, Roman-Cuesta R, Lagomasino D, Cifuentes-Jara M,
Fatoyinbo T, Ott L, Poulter B: Widespread mangrove damage
resulting from the 2017 Atlantic mega hurricane season.
Environ Res Lett 2020, 15:064010.
76. Spalding MD, Ruffo S, Lacambra C, Meliane I, Hale LZ, Shepard C,
Beck MW: The role of ecosystems in coastal protection:
adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean
Coastal Manage 2014, 90:50-57.
77. Monnereau I, Abraham S: Limits to autonomous adaptation in
response to coastal erosion in Kosrae, Micronesia. Int J Glob
Warming 2013, 5:416-432.
78. Marzeion B, Levermann A: Loss of cultural world heritage and
currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environ Res Lett
2014, 9:034001.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Loss and damage implications of sea-level rise on small islands Martyr-Koller et al. 259
79. Mycoo M, Donovan M: A Blue Urban Agenda: Adapting to Climate
Change in the Coastal Cities of Caribbean and Pacific Small Island
Developing States. Inter-American Development Bank; 2017.
80. Karlsson M, Oort BV, Romstad B: What we have lost and cannot
become: societal outcomes of coastal erosion in southern
Belize. Ecol Soc 2015, 20:4.
81. Keellings D, Hernandez J, Ayala: Extreme rainfall associated
with hurricane Maria over Puerto Rico and its connections to
climate variability and change. Geophys Res Lett 2019, 46:2964-
2973.
82. Reed K, Wehner M, Stansfield A, Zarzycki C: Anthropogenic
influence on hurricane Dorian’s extreme rainfall [in
“Explaining Extremes of 2019 from a Climate Perspective]. Bull
Am Meteor Soc 2021, 102:S9-S15.
83. Weir T: Adaptation in small islands: research themes and gaps.
Managing Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific Region.
Climate Change Management. Cham: Springer; 2020, 45-68.
84. Singh P, Charan D, Kaur M, Railoa K, Chand R: Place attachment
and cultural barriers to climate change induced relocation:
lessons from Vunisavisavi Village, Vanua Levu, Fiji. In
Managing Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific Region. Edited
by Filho WL. Cham: Springer; 2020:27-44.
www.sciencedirect.com
85. Deopersad C, Persaud C, Chakalall Y, Bello O, Masson M,
Perroni A, Carrera-Marquis D, Fontes de Meira L, Gonzales C,
Peralta L et al.: Assessment of the Effects and Impacts of Hurricane
Dorian in the Bahamas. Inter-American Developmental Bank;
2020.
86. Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica: Post-disaster
Needs Assessment Hurricane Maria September 18, 2017.
Govenrment of Dominica; 2017.
87. ACAPS: ACAPS Disaster Profile: Dominica, January 2018. ACAPS;
2018.
88. Monioudi I, Asariotis R, Becker A, Bhat C, Dowding-Gooden D,
Esteban M, Feyen L, Mentaschi L, Nikolaou A, Nurse L, Phillips W,
Smith D, Satoh M, Trotz U, Velegrakis A, Voukouvalas E,
Vousdoukas M, Witkop R: Climate change impacts on critical
international transportation assets of Caribbean Small Island
Developing States (SIDS): the case of Jamaica and Saint Lucia.
Reg Environ Change 2018, 18:2211-2225.
89. Mycoo M: Sustainable tourism, climate change and sea-level
rise adaptation policies in Barbados. Nat Resour Forum 2014,
38:47-57.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2021, 50:245–259