Indices of Coastal Vulnerability To Climate Change: A Review

Environmental Processes (2022) 9: 29
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-022-00577-9
REVIEW ARTICLE
Indices of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change: a Review
Charalampos Nikolaos Roukounis1 · Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis1
Received: 2 February 2022 / Accepted: 4 April 2022 /Published online: 3 May 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to identify and analyze relevant research of index-based
methods for the evaluation of climate change vulnerability and resilience of coastal areas.
We searched, retrieved, classified and reviewed papers on climate-change hazards, impacts,
vulnerability and resilience of coastal water systems and relevant infrastructure. For this,
Scopus, Science Direct, Thompson-Reuters Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed and
other relevant databases were used. The analysis of the state-of-the-art presented in this
paper acknowledges that using vulnerability and resilience indices in climate vulnerabil-
ity research is effective, providing a solid, efficient and user-friendly framework. However,
selection of index variables should be part of a holistic as well as dynamic approach to
identify not only areas in danger, but also the level of social vulnerability.
Keywords Climate change · Sea-level rise · Vulnerability Assessment · Vulnerability

index · Coastal infrastructure resilience
1 Introduction
Climate change (CC), alongside with rapid population growth and natural and manmade
disasters, require modern approaches to be addressed; forward-looking design can have
a profound impact on safety and prosperity of individuals and communities as a whole
(Rus et al. 2018). In everyday life, the term “vulnerability” is widely used. Comte et al.
(2019) claim that a consistent definition of vulnerability is not available. It is difficult for
a definition to include every assessment context, as it is used in different policies and sys-
tems exposed to diverse hazards (Nguyen et al. 2016). However, related to CC, the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2014) definition of vulnerability has been
acknowledged by researchers (e.g., Li et al. 2019; Gargiulo et al. 2020). It is defined as
“the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a
* Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis
[email protected]; [email protected]
Charalampos Nikolaos Roukounis
[email protected]
1
Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards and Proactive Planning & Laboratory
of Reclamation Works and Water Resources Management, School of Rural, Surveying
and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou
Str., 15780 Zographou, Athens, Greece
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
29 Page 2 of 25 C. N. Roukounis, V. A. Tsihrintzis
variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of
capacity to cope and adapt”.
According to Gargiulo et al. (2020), coastal vulnerability can be considered as the inte-
gration of sensitivity and social vulnerability of coastal areas. For this purpose, physical,
socio-environmental and socio-economic aspects of coastal areas are taken into consid-
eration. The analysis of vulnerability is occasionally carried out using complex indices
(Gargiulo et al. 2020). Vulnerability is also strictly linked with adaptation, as the adaptive
capacity is described as the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to
adjust and respond to potential damage, for example due to weather extremes (IPCC 2001,
2014).
In terms of social vulnerability, characteristics of communities as well as inequities
indicate an important factor in the ability of groups to respond to natural hazards and cli-
mate challenges (Cutter et al. 2003). Especially in coastal areas, social inequities, income,
race, ethnicity, and demographic data are key factors in people’s vulnerability to environ-
mental hazards (Li and Li 2011). Economic losses might be direct, affecting buildings,
crucial infrastructure and their operations (Asariotis et al. 2017), or indirect, affecting local
economy, causing issues in the supply chain, unemployment, investment decisions. The
use of susceptibility functions (or damage functions) is the most frequently applied method
(Meyer et al. 2013) to assess the direct costs related to natural hazards (e.g., Pistrika et al.
2014). Also, to assess indirect costs, economic models at local, regional or national level
are used (Meyer et al. 2013). Financial costs vary from one place to another, as developed
countries have higher property values and disaster insurance is affordable (Christian Aid
2021). However, it is rather difficult to define disaster cost, as it highly depends on the
purpose of the assessment and the consequential uncertainties regarding the indirect cost
(Hallegate and Przyluski 2010).
One question that needs to be addressed is “Why to use index-based approaches?” Indi-
ces are “measurable, observable quantities that serve as proxies for an aspect of a system
that cannot itself be directly adequately measured” (McIntosh and Becker 2017). Abstract
concepts like vulnerability and resilience can be visualized in spatial scales, using observa-
ble variables (McIntosh and Becker 2019). Within this approach, vague factors like “social
factors” could be specified, and thus, quantified using multiple variables (e.g., age, educa-
tion, unemployment) (Malone and Engle 2011).
In this study, a systematic review of assorted approaches applied globally is presented.
In Sect. 2, the methodology followed in the literature review is analyzed. Section 3 dis-
cusses climate change vulnerability and resilience indices for coastal areas found in the
literature. Section 4 briefly presents aggregation tools for the evaluation of the abovemen-
tioned indices. Finally, Sect. 5 presents the main conclusions and highlights gaps in the
literature.
2 Review Methodology
The goal of the review was to identify and analyze relevant research of index-based
methods for the evaluation of climate change vulnerability and resilience of coastal
areas. Understanding and quantifying the risk is the main challenge that occurs, and is
the first step in the development of an effective framework to address real-world cases.
The PRISMA 2020 methodology by Page et al. (2021) was followed, as it includes both
systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We searched, retrieved, classified and reviewed
13
Indices of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change: a Review Page 3 of 25 29
papers on climate-change vulnerability and resilience indices related to coastal water

systems and relevant infrastructure. For this, Scopus, Thompson-Reuters Web of Sci-
ence, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and other relevant databases were used.
The search strategy included free text terms such as “climate change vulnerability
index”, “coastal vulnerability indices”, “resilience of coastal areas to climate change”,
“climate change resilience index”, “climate change and socio-economic indicators”,
“coastal flood vulnerability”, “climate change and coastal flooding”. A summary of
1397 titles was revealed and screened by a single reviewer. The majority of the literature
was in English. One hundred thirty-six (136) records were assessed for eligibility to be
included in the study and 46 were finally included. The PRISMA flowchart is presented
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart – Study methodology of excluded and included articles
13
3 Addressing Vulnerability and Resilience in a Changing Climate
It is widely believed that coastal zones are exposed to diverse natural hazards under a
changing climate. Coastal areas and infrastructure should be designed to address these
challenges (Malliouri et al. 2017). The exposure level is affected by the land use of coastal
areas, the population and social factors, the shoreline type and the existing (and planned)
infrastructure. Current and future socio-environmental and socio-economic data are used
to develop different scenarios (Fig. 2). Also, there is a significant variety of presumed
socio-economic impacts of climate change among key coastal sectors. The environment
is described with hydrologic, atmospheric and geologic variables. As a result, vulnerabil-
ity components could be identified in spatial scale (Bevacqua et al. 2019). Using differ-
ent projections for future scenarios could also add a temporal scale to the vulnerability
assessment.
Important components affecting coastal areas are the astronomical tide, the storm surge,
the wave run-up, the weather extremes and the sea-level rise. CC affects the frequency of
storm surge events and the magnitude of wave heights, having crucial impact on coastal
and port infrastructure (Tsoukala et al. 2016; Afentoulis et al. 2017). The main impacts of
Fig. 2 Flowchart for the definition of exposure and socio-environmental scenarios (Modified from Toimil
et al. 2017)
13
these phenomena are coastal erosion and coastal flooding. The majority of the literature
analyzes risk caused by SLR and storm surges, while wave data have only been used by a
few researchers (e.g., Gornitz et al. 1994; Dawson et al. 2009; Toimil et al. 2017). The use
of historical weather data, as well as climate projections downscaled at the regional level
have been used extensively in the literature to model the impacts of CC in various case
studies (Fig. 3). However, climate projections and bias correction methods still have sig-
nificant uncertainties (Kourtis and Tsihrintzis 2021).
Social variables include population, nationality, economic status, age, gender, house-
hold type, housing quality, and health. Coastal areas are particularly exposed to climate
change and extreme weather events, and the dependence of many regions on touristic and
recreation activities intensifies the vulnerability level (Bevacqua et al. 2019). This also cre-
ates an uncertain environment for touristic activities (Uyarra et al. 2005).
3.1 Tools for Aggregation/Evaluation of Variables
The majority of the approaches in the literature promote a static understanding of

human–environment interactions. Ford et al. (2018) raised similar concerns. The recent
crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the importance of dynamic
approaches when social indicators are used. Hinkel (2011) also supported that, as useful as
they can get, vulnerability and resilience indices solely cannot direct decision makers and
stakeholders to raise public awareness, propose adaptation measures and monitor adapta-
tion policy and funds.
A holistic approach is necessary to overcome the abovementioned concerns. This cre-
ates the urge to aggregate the divergent aspects of geophysical and social vulnerability
Fig. 3 Flowchart for the creation of hazard maps (Modified from Toimil et al. 2017)
13
into a sole index, or a limited group of indices. Integrating data from diverse sources is
frequently necessary to understand potential relationships among them (Preston and Jones
2008). Aggregating variables reduces the amount of complexity, and the indices, often
described as a “vulnerability score,” visualize the climate change vulnerability (Nguyen
et al. 2016).
Flood risk management and defense projects interact with various sectors (socio-eco-
nomic, environmental, etc.) of an area wider than the affected one. Different stakeholder
groups are involved and expected to have diverse opinions about the projects’ magnitude
and the alternatives which seem viable. Therefore, policy and decision-making on coastal
flood defense and risk management at strategic level depend on many criteria and stake-
holders (Maragoudaki and Tsakiris 2005).
Weighting and ranking methods are used to express the relative importance of differ-
ent individual variables in a system. With Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), it is
rather possible to overwhelm many of the disadvantages of conventional evaluation meth-
ods. It allows for factors that cannot easily be expressed in monetary terms or quantified,
but nevertheless play a decisive role in shaping policies, such as environmental, spatial and
social impacts of a project, social justice etc., which should always be taken into considera-
tion (Roukounis et al. 2020; Roukouni 2016).
Especially the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) by Saaty (1987) is frequently met in
the literature. Ellen et al. (2016) suggested that in climate planning, multi-criteria analysis
has the ability to perform more efficiently than cost–benefit analysis and working group
approaches during the decision-making process, as they are more comprehensive and
scenario-driven.
GIS can be used to produce different kinds of hazard and vulnerability maps, as
researchers integrate indicators regarding various aspects of vulnerability. To locate ‘hot
spots’ of vulnerability, measures of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are com-
bined and mapped. On the other hand, uncertainties in the model could also be identified
(Malone and Engle 2011).
3.2 Different Approaches to Coastal Vulnerability and Resilience Indexation
In order to establish new approaches in vulnerability and risk analysis, the development of
solidly identified and quantified variables could be effective (Brooks 2003). Index-based
methods offer a simple way for the classification of alternative options during decision
making procedures (Giannakidou et al. 2020).
One major challenge in climate vulnerability research is to define the subject of interest.
Initially, research was focused on the physical profile of climate change vulnerability (e.g.,
Gornitz 1991; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999), developing robust indices that estimate
the exposure of coastal areas. However, the understanding that climate change is a concern
of humankind globally (UN 2015) had raised the question “who is vulnerable” rather than
“what”. The assumption that people lacking wealth and resources are more susceptible to
be damaged by climate change impacts has been common among researchers (Malone and
Engle 2011). Indeed, Islam and Winkel (2017) illustrated how social inequality affects the
ability of disadvantaged groups to respond to climate change hazards.
In order to address the abovementioned challenges, indicators should be consistent and
coherent, based on robust data, using multiple criteria in the selection process. A holistic
approach is crucial in order to assess coastal vulnerability, as excluding features may lead
to unrealistic results (Li and Li 2011). Furthermore, high spatial resolution is crucial for
13
the effectiveness of vulnerability indices (Gargiulo et al. 2020), taking into consideration
factors that cannot be evaluated at large scales (Torresan et al. 2008).
The index-based approaches have been the most widely accepted methods to assess vul-
nerability (Debortoli et al. 2019; Blasiak et al. 2017; Nguyen et al. 2016; Balica 2012;
Jun et al. 2011; Baker 2009). In complex human and other natural systems, more than one
factors are present. The exposure and vulnerability of these environments is estimated by
integrating multiple factors of every part of the system. As a result, these approaches are
adopted more frequently than single-factor methodologies (Giri et al. 2020). In the present
research various vulnerability indices were identified. The literature review showed that the
majority of vulnerability indices were developed considering the geomorphological and
socio-economic factors as main features.
In order to evaluate the geophysical characteristics of coastal areas and to allocate the
future impacts of climate change among divergent coastal sections, the Coastal Vulner-
ability Index (CVI) was developed (Gornitz 1991). Different versions of the CVI were
applied first on the coasts of the USA, Canada and Mexico (Gornitz et al. 1994; Thieler
and Hammar-Klose 1999). This index was also applied, after modifications matching local
preferences and data limitations in various other locations (Shaw et al. 1998; Doukakis
2005; Abuodha and Woodroffe 2006; Mendoza and Jiménez 2009; Gaki-Papanastassiou
et al. 2010; Karymbalis et al. 2012; Yin et al. 2012; Kokkinos et al. 2014; Satta et al. 2015;
Pantusa et al. 2018; Tragaki et al. 2018; Hawchar et al. 2020).
Pendleton et al. (2004) developed a weighted CVI method, based on Multi-Criteria
Analysis, and more specifically, the AHP. Similar approaches to the CVI include those by:
Bagdanavičiute et al. (2015); Devoy (2008); Mani Murali et al. (2013); Pendleton et al.
(2004); Rao et al. (2008); Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013); Addo (2013); Mani Murali
et al. (2013); Bonetti et al. (2013). A summary of the studies implementing indices with
geophysical characteristics is presented in Table 1.
A variety of physical characteristics have been included to these indices, in order to
evaluate vulnerability levels of coastal areas to different climate change-related hazards.
Geomorphological (slope, elevation, shoreline type, rock type, solid and drift geology,
coastal erosion/accretion rate), sea (SLR, tidal range, storm surge), wave (wave height,
wave run-up) and weather data, alongside with information regarding land cover, existing
coastal flood protection measures and other environmental agents are used for this purpose.
A summary of the physical variables used in the literature is presented in Table 2.
Climate change and socio-economic development are profoundly connected, as human
activities have been the main driver of environmental harm. Socio-economic variables are
used to determine the impacts of climate change on the society. These variables broaden
physical indices to an inherent cultural bias (McLaughlin and Cooper 2010). About 10% of
people who reside at low elevation coastal zones, located up to 10 m elevation of present-
day mean sea level (MSL) (Wahl et al. 2018), face a great threat due to sea level rise (SLR)
(McGranahan et al. 2007). Thus, identifying social vulnerability of coastal communities
is crucial for planning resilience strategies (Tragaki et al. 2018). Social vulnerability may
include characteristics of the communities and the built environment, such as the urbani-
zation level, the growth rates, and the economic stability and development (Cutter et al.
2003). As it is believed that vulnerability depends on the sensitivity of both the natural
and social components of a system (Heinz Center 2002), social inequities are key factors
in natural hazard vulnerability assessment (Li and Li 2011). Characteristics of communi-
ties as well as social inequalities have also been taken into consideration. Socio-economic
parameters such as demographic data, education level, population density and land use are
constantly used in the literature to estimate social vulnerability. Cutter et al. (2003) used
13
Table 1 Geophysical Coastal Vulnerability Indices found in the literature
No Index Authors Case Study Area Variables
13
1 CVI (Coastal Vulnerability Index) Gornitz (1991) Canada Relief, Geomorphology, Rock Type, Vertical Sea movement,
29 Page 8 of 25
shoreline displacement, tidal range, wave height

2 SI (Sensitivity Index) Shaw et al. (1998) Canada Relief, Geomorphology, Rock Type, sea level tendency,
shoreline displacement rate, mean tidal range, mean annual
maximum significant wave height
3 CVI (Coastal Vulnerability Index) Thieler and Hammar-Klose (1999) Mexico Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate, shoreline ero-
sion/acceleration rate, mean tidal range, mean wave height
4 Coastal Vulnerability Index Pendleton et al. (2004) USA Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate, shoreline ero-
5 Coastal Vulnerability Index Doukakis (2005) Greece Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate, shoreline ero-
6 CVI (Coastal Vulnerability Index) Abuodha and Woodroffe (2006) Australia Elevation, barrier types, beach types, shoreline erosion/accel-
eration rate, SLR, mean tidal range, mean wave height
8 Coastal Vulnerability Index Rao et al. (2008) India Coastal geomorphology, coastal slope, shoreline change, mean
spring tide range, mean significant wave height
9 Flood/Erosion Vulnerability Index (FVI—EVI) Mendoza and Jiménez (2009) Spain Storms, maximum elevation of flood water, storm surge wave
run-up, shoreline type
coastal erosion, sediment grain size, wave height, hinterland
properties
10 Coastal Vulnerability Index Gaki-Papanastassiou et al. (2010) Greece Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate, shoreline
erosion/acceleration rate, mean tidal range, mean significant
wave height
11 CSI (Coastal Sensitivity Index) Karymbalis et al. (2012) Greece Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate, shoreline
erosion/acceleration rate, mean tidal range, mean significant
wave height
12 Coastal Vulnerability Index Yin et al. (2012) China SLR, geomorphology, coastal elevation, coastal slope, shoreline
erosion, coastal land use, mean tidal range, mean wave height
13 Coastal Vulnerability Index Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013) Canada Freeboard, relative coastline exposure, width of foreshore,
coastal slope, observed erodibility, presence of vegetation,
presence of anthropogenic or natural protection, morphologi-
C. N. Roukounis, V. A. Tsihrintzis
cal resilience
Table 1 (continued)
14 Coastal Vulnerability Index Bonetti et al. (2013) Brazil Backshore landforms, backshore altitude, shoreline displace-
ment, shoreline exposure to wave incidence, population and
buildings at risk
15 Coastal Vulnerability Index Addo (2013) Ghana Mean elevation, mean shoreline displacement, local subsidence
trend, mean tidal range, maximum significant wave height
16 Flood/Erosion Vulnerability Index (FVI—EVI) Kokkinos et al. (2014) Greece Storms, maximum elevation of flood water, storm surge wave
run-up, shoreline type
coastal erosion, sediment grain size, wave height, hinterland
properties
17 Coastal Vulnerability Index Bagdanavičiute et al. (2015) Lithuania Historical shoreline change rate, beach width, beach height,
beach sediments, mean significant wave height
18 Coastal Vulnerability Index Pantusa et al. (2018) Italy Geomorphology, coastal slope, coastal erosion, emerged beach
width, dune width, relative SLR, mean significant wave
height, mean tidal range, width of vegetation behind the
beach, presence of Posidonia Oceanica

19 Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Tragaki et al. (2018) Greece Geomorphology, shoreline shifting rate, coastal slope, relative
SLR rise rate, mean wave height, mean tidal range
20 Geospatial Risk Index for Critical Infrastructure Hawchar et al. (2020) Ireland SLR, coastal erosion rate, heavy rainfall, long periods of
precipitation, high river flow, high wind speed, temperature,
landslides, infrastructure importance
21 Coastal Sensitivity Index (CSI) Zampazas et al. (2022) Greece Geomorphology, geology, shoreline erosion/accretion rate, rela-
tive SLR change rate, mean wave height, mean tidal range
Page 9 of 25 29
13
Table 2 Geophysical Variables used in the literature

Variables Authors
Geomorphology (slope, elevation, shoreline Gornitz (1991), Shaw et al. (1998), Thieler and Hammar-
type, rock type, beach type, solid and drift Klose (1999), Pendleton et al. (2004), Doukakis
geology) (2005), Boruff et al. (2005), Abuodha and Woodroffe
(2006), Rao et al. (2008), Mendoza and Jiménez
(2009), Gaki-Papanastassiou et al. (2010), McLaugh-
lin and Cooper (2010), Karymbalis et al. (2012),
Balica et al. (2012), Yin et al. (2012), Tibbetts and
van Proosdij (2013), Addo (2013), Mani Murali et al.
(2013), Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Kokkinos et al.
(2014), Ahsan and Warner (2014), Satta (2014), Satta
et al. (2015), Bagdanavičiute et al. (2015), Zanetti et al.
(2016), Tragaki et al. (2018), Gargiulo et al. (2020),
El-Zein et al. (2021), Zampazas et al. (2022)
Sea-level rise Shaw et al. (1998), Pendleton et al. (2004), Doukakis
(2005), Abuodha and Woodroffe (2006), Gaki-
Papanastassiou et al. (2010), Karymbalis et al. (2012),
Yin et al. (2012), Mani Murali et al. (2013), Ahsan
and Warner (2014), Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Satta
(2014), Satta et al. (2015), Kantamaneni (2016),
Zanetti et al. (2016), Toimil et al. (2017), Tragaki et al.
(2018), Pantusa et al. (2018), Hawchar et al. (2020),
Zampazas et al. (2022)
Erosion and shoreline change Gornitz (1991), Shaw et al. (1998), Thieler and Hammar-
Klose (1999), Pendleton et al. (2004), Boruff et al.
(2005), Abuodha and Woodroffe (2006), Mendoza and
Jiménez (2009), Gaki-Papanastassiou et al. (2010),
Karymbalis et al. (2012), Tibbetts and van Proosdij
(2013), Addo (2013), Mani Murali et al. (2013),
Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Kokkinos et al. (2014),
Satta (2014), Satta et al. (2015), Bagdanavičiute et al.
(2015), Zanetti et al. (2016), Tragaki et al. (2018),
Pantusa et al. (2018), Zampazas et al. (2022)
Tidal range Gornitz (1991), Shaw et al. (1998), Thieler and Hammar-
Klose (1999), Pendleton et al. (2004), Doukakis
(2005), Boruff et al. (2005), Abuodha and Woodroffe
(2006), Rao et al. (2008), Gaki-Papanastassiou et al.
(2010), McLaughlin and Cooper (2010), Karymbalis
et al. (2012), Yin et al. (2012), Mani Murali et al.
(2013), Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013), Addo (2013),
Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Zanetti et al. (2016), Toimil
et al. (2017), Tragaki et al. (2018), Pantusa et al.
(2018), Zampazas et al. (2022)
Wave height Gornitz (1991), Shaw et al. (1998), Thieler and Hammar-
Klose (1999), Pendleton et al. (2004), Doukakis
(2005), Boruff et al. (2005), Abuodha and Woodroffe
(2006), Rao et al. (2008), Gaki-Papanastassiou et al.
(2010), McLaughlin and Cooper (2010), Li and Li
(2011), Karymbalis et al. (2012), Mani Murali et al.
(2013), Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013), Yin et al.
(2012), Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Addo (2013),
Bagdanavičiute et al. (2015), Calil et al. (2017),
Tragaki et al. (2018), Pantusa et al. (2018), Zampazas
et al. (2022)
13
Table 2 (continued)
Variables Authors
Storm surge Mendoza and Jiménez (2009), Balica et al. (2012),

Kokkinos et al. (2014), Calil et al. (2017), Toimil et al.
(2017)
Number of extreme events Balica et al. (2012), Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013),
Zanetti et al. (2016), Calil et al. (2017), Hawchar et al.
(2020)
Coastline (km) Balica et al. (2012)
Distance from shoreline Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013), Satta (2014), Satta
et al. (2015), Zanetti et al. (2016), Gargiulo et al.
(2020)
Elevation Abuodha and Woodroffe (2006), Mendoza and Jiménez
(2009), McLaughlin and Cooper (2010), Yin et al.
(2012), Kokkinos et al. (2014), Satta (2014), Satta
et al. (2015)
Land cover Mani Murali et al. (2013), Balica et al. (2012), Satta
(2014), Satta et al. (2015), Calil et al. (2017)
Hazard maps Kleinosky et al. (2007), Tate et al. (2010), Balica et al.
(2012), Satta (2014), Guillard-Goncąlves et al. (2015),
Bagdanavičiute et al. (2015), Hawchar et al. (2020)
Coastal flood protection Li and Li (2011), Balica et al. (2012), Satta (2014)
Groundwater level Satta (2014)
Vegetation-Posidonia oceanica Tibbetts and van Proosdij (2013), Satta (2014), Pantusa
et al. (2018)
qualitative and quantitative data related to 42 variables (that were then reduced to 11 inde-
pendent factors) to estimate the level of social vulnerability within American metropoli-
tan coastal areas, creating the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI). This index has been the
baseline for the vast majority of the indices in the literature that take social factors into
consideration. Alexandrakis et al. (2014) used the term socCVI, in an effort to combine the
physical parameters of CVI with socio-economic factors. Guillard-Goncąlves et al. (2015)
readapted SoVI to suit the social context of their case study in Lisbon, Portugal. Kleinosky
et al. (2007) used a variety of socio-economic parameters within scenarios of sea-level rise
to assess storm-surge flooding vulnerability level. In the approach of Tate et al. (2010),
frequent hazards define a higher level of risk, as monetary losses are depicted via crucial
infrastructure damage. A summary of the social coastal vulnerability indices used in the
literature is presented in Table 3.
Composite indices composed of various index types, such as geophysical, social, eco-
nomic (i.e., socio-economic, socio-enviromental) are also frequently used. From simpler
(Wu et al. 2002; Boruff et al. 2005; Chakraborty et al. 2005; Kantamaneni 2016) to more
complex indices (Li and Li 2011; Satta 2014; Zanetti et al. 2016), recent researches tend
to consider multiple factors. More and more variables describing climate data, wave and
wind, geomorphology, land use/land cover, education, unemployment, and crucial infra-
structure in coastal areas are used, with the proper adjustments for each case study (Brigug-
lio and Galea 2003; McLaughlin and Cooper 2010; Mackey and Russell 2011; Balica et al.
2012; Mani Murali et al. 2013; Satta 2014; Ahsan and Warner 2014; Kantamaneni 2016;
Zanetti et al. 2016; Calil et al. 2017; Toimil et al. 2017; Debortoli et al. 2019; Gargiulo
13
13
29 Page 12 of 25
Table 3 Social Coastal Vulnerability Indices found in the literature

1 SoVI (Social Vulnerability Index) Cutter et al. (2003) USA Socio-economic status, gender, race and ethnicity, age, commercial and
industrial development, employment loss, rural/urban, residential property,
infrastructure and lifelines, renters, occupation, family structure, education,
population growth, medical services, social dependence, special needs
populations
2 No named-Social Vulnerability Index Kleinosky et al. (2007) USA Flood risk maps, poverty, immigrants, old age/disabilities
3 No named-Social Vulnerability Index Tate et al. (2010) USA Flood hazard maps, socio-economic status, age, race and ethnicity, gender,
total population, population distribution
4 SoVI (Social Vulnerability Index) Guillard-Goncąlves et al. (2015) Portugal Flood hazard maps, socio-economic status, gender, race and ethnicity, age,
employment loss, rural/urban, renters, occupation, family structure, educa-
tion level, population growth, medical services and access, social depend-
ency, special needs population
5 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) Tragaki et al. (2018) Greece Population density, share of persons above 65 years in total population, share
of children below 5 years in total population, share of foreign-born in total
population, share of women in total population, share of low educated in
total population
et al. 2020; Edmonds et al. 2020; El-Zein et al. 2021). Especially in urban coastal environ-
ments (e.g., Zanetti et al. 2016; Gargiulo et al. 2020), the combination of different variable
types seems to provide a more dynamic approach to human–environment interactions. As
index-based methods are believed by some authors (e.g., Ford et al. 2018) to consist a static
approach, the use of combined indices is a step to fill this gap, since human–environment
interactions in coastal urban environments are highly dynamic. Especially in coastal cities,
natural systems are distorted by human actions and co-exist with the built environment
(Malvarez et al. 2021) in a complex definition of resilience (Masselink and Lazarus 2019).
However, some authors suggest that one single complex index is not representative and
prefer the use of multiple single indices instead (e.g., Tragaki et al. 2018). A summary of
composite indices found in the literature is presented in Table 4, and the socio-economic
variables used for social and composite indices are presented in Table 5.
Questionnaire surveys have also been used to evaluate vulnerability and resilience, as
in the case of the Port Resilience Index (Morris and Sempier 2016). Global indices such
as the World Risk Index (World Risk Report 2019), the Index for Risk Management
(INFORM; Messina et al. 2019), the Climate Risk Index (CRI; Eckstein et al. 2020) and
the University of Notre Dame’s Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN; Chen et al. 2015)
have also been frequently used in order to validate custom indices, as they are designed to
improve the common data basis for risk management so that the majority of governments
and policy makers and other stakeholders can work consistently (Poljansek et al. 2020).
The CVI (Gornitz 1991) has been the ground for many indices with a geophysical
approach developed later in the literature, and the SoVI (Cutter et al. 2003) for indices with
a socio-economic approach. Past researches included simpler indices and variables were
one-dimensional. As years advanced, more and more papers combining physical and socio-
economic approaches have been published. Despite having similarities in variable selec-
tion, it was not possible to find consistency between different approaches, especially for
complex indices. Also, even though the majority of the variables are quantitative, the eval-
uation process highly depends on the personal opinion of the researchers. Variable ranking
and categorization may differ, taking into consideration specific aspects of each study area.
There are even different approaches for the same variable. For example, some research-
ers suggest that low values for the variable “tidal range” indicate high vulnerability (e.g.,
Tragaki et al. 2018; Zampazas et al. 2022), while others suggest the opposite (e.g., Pan-
tusa et al. 2018). Furthermore, vulnerability assessment using indices seems to be a static
approach while human–environment interactions are highly dynamic. The approaches
of Zanetti et al. (2016), Toimil et al. (2017) and Gargiulo et al. (2020) tried to fill this
gap with indices matching diverse socio-economic issues; however, there is still room for
improvement in this direction. The MHCRI by Satta (2014) included diverse variables that
are implemented in both urban and rural environments.
4 Summary and Conclusions
A total of 46 studies that generate a vulnerability index for climate change related hazards
in coastal areas has been reviewed. There are studies that focus on physical variables and
others that focus on both physical and social factors. An interesting fact is the diversity of
the approaches that have been developed. Authors have used different scales of analysis,
criteria for variable selection and natural phenomena as main hazards for their research.
Especially among social indicators, it is possible that limitations in data availability have
13
Table 4 Composite Coastal Vulnerability Indices found in the literature
13
1 No-named Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Index Wu et al. (2002) USA Total population, Total housing units, Number of
29 Page 14 of 25
females, Number of non-white residents, Number

of people U18, Number of people O60, Number of
female-headed single parent households, Number of
renter-occupied housing units, Median House Value,
Flooding Risk Zones
2 Composite Vulnerability Index Briguglio and Galea (2003) Malta, Singapore Economic Openness, dependence on narrow range
imports, dependence strategic imports, peripheral-
ity, economic vulnerability and resilience
3 PVI (Place Vulnerability Index) Boruff et al. (2005) USA Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate,
shoreline erosion/acceleration rate, mean tidal
range, mean wave height, socio-economic status,
gender, race and ethnicity, age, commercial and
industrial development, employment loss, rural/
urban, residential property, infrastructure and
lifelines, renters, occupation, family structure, edu-
cation, population growth, medical services, social
dependence, special needs populations
4 No-named Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Index Chakraborty et al. (2005) USA Flooding Risk, Population and structure, Differential
access to resources, Population with special evacu-
ation needs
5 CVI (Coastal Vulnerability Index) McLaughlin and Cooper Ireland Shoreline type, rivers, solid geology drift geology,
(2010) elevation, orientation, inland buffer, landform,
coastal elevation, inland buffer, significant wave
height, tidal range, difference in modal and storm
waves, frequency of onshore storms, storm prob-
ability, morpho-dynamic state, settlement, cultural
heritage, roads, railways, land use, conservation
designation
Table 4 (continued)
6 No-named Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Index Li and Li (2011) China Total population, population density, age, educational
level, road density, road grade, industrial output
value, agricultural output value, per-capita output
value, residential land area, ratio of urban residential
land, farming land area, aquaculture land area, ratio
of low-lying arable land, beaches and wetlands area,
ratio of beaches, mangroves area, rivers density,
harbors and wharfs, tide-prevention engineering,
ratio of coastal highways, coastal building density,
seawalls completion rate, ratio of seawalls, ratio of
labor population, gross income
7 No-named Vulnerability index Mackey and Russell (2011) China SLR, extreme weather events, storm surge, inunda-
tion, salinity, population, population density, aver-
age family size, number of households, population
at working age, average natural population growth
rate, annual average income per capita, number of

poor households, percentage of poor households,
number of teachers, number of doctors, agricultural
land per person, percentage of ethnic households,
number of rural households, number of livelihood
streams, streams employing > 10,000 or produc-
ing > 250billion VND, average annual GDP per
household, rice crop land per person, households
reliant on industry, average annual GDP per house-
hold contributed by industry, households connected
to national grid, length of high/medium voltage
powerlines, number of power plants, percentage
of off-farm income, number of factories, number
of different industries, urban population, urban
households, urban area, sewer/septic tank, water
supply, major waterways, major roads, district
roads, transport hubs
Page 15 of 25 29
13
Table 4 (continued)
13
8 CCFVI (Coastal City Flood Vulnerability Index) Balica et al. (2012) Cities worldwide SLR, storm surge, number of cyclones, river dis-
charge, foreshore slope, soil subsidence, coastline
29 Page 16 of 25
length, percentile of disabled people, shelters,

cultural heritage, awareness/preparedness, length
of drainage, growing coastal population, recovery
time, uncontrolled planning zones, flood hazard
maps, institutional organizations, flood protection
measures
9 Coastal Vulnerability Index Mani Murali et al. (2013) India SLR, geomorphology, regional elevation, shoreline
change, sea level changes, significant wave height,
tidal range, population, land use, land cover, road
network, cultural heritage
10 Social Coastal Vulnerability Index (SocCVI) Alexandrakis et al. (2014) Greece Geomorphology, coastal slope, relative SLR rate,
shoreline erosion/accretion rate, mean tidal range,
mean wave height, presence of settlements, sites
of cultural heritage, transport network, land use,
economic activities in the coast
11 MHCRI (Multi-Hazard Risk Index) Satta (2014) Meditteranean SLR, storms, urban development, tourist develop-
ment, coastal erosion, artificial frontage, coastal
slope, elevation, distance from the shoreline, river
flow regulation, groundwater occurrence, aquifer
thickness, hydraulic conductivity, height of ground-
water level, groundwater consumption, distance
from the shoreline, impact of existing status of riv-
erflow regulation, ecosystems health, hazard maps,
coastal protection structures, drainage density,
freshwater barrier wells, water management, educa-
tion level, age, awareness/preparedness, people and
livelihoods, infrastructures, land use, socio-cultural
assets, livestock density index, tourism structures
density, presence of aquifers
Table 4 (continued)
12 Socio-Economic Vulnerability Index Ahsan and Warner (2014) Bangladesh Population density, age, gender, population growth
rate, percentage of migrated households, percentage
of illiterate households, percentage of house-
holds not having brick-built house, percentage of
households participated in the last local-election,
percentage of households contributed free-labor to
embankment construction or similar activity, per-
centage of households depending on natural source
for their income, percentage of unemployed house-
holds, percentage of households below poverty line,
percentage of households lost land in last 5 years
due to disasters, percentage of households not get-
ting electricity, percentage of households not getting
sanitary latrine, percentage of households using
pond, river and well water for drinking and cooking,
percentage of households with family member with

chronic illness, percentage of not-paved roads, per-
centage of households not willing to go to cyclone
shelter, percentage of households not having shelter
in cyclone shelter, percentage of households do not
understand National Warning System, provision of
local early warning system, number of cyclones in
the last 5 years, number of floods in the last 5 years
13 MS-CRI (Multi-Scale Coastal Risk Index) Satta et al. (2015) Mediterranean SLR, storms, drought, landform, coastal elevation,
population over 65 years, education level, popula-
tion growth, tourist arrivals, land cover, population
density
Page 17 of 25 29
13
Table 4 (continued)
13
14 CIVI (Coastal Infrastructure Vulnerability Index) Kantamaneni (2016) Wales Population in coastal vulnerability zones, infrastruc-
ture, land use, rainfall, flood/storm impact, fiscal
29 Page 18 of 25
value of the place, coastal erosion, high growth

of population alongside coasts, drainage system,
warning system, marine industry growth, politics
and policies
15 Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Index for Zanetti et al. (2016) Brazil Geomorphology, SLR, tide height, relief, distance
Coastal Areas (SEVICA) from the coast, coastal slope, number of extreme
events, water body proximity, geotechnical classifi-
cation of soil, education level, income, population
density, age
16 CCRI (Comparative Coastal Risk Index) Calil et al. (2017) Latin America-Caribbean Wave energy, storm surge, El Nino, significant wave
height, cumulated tropical cyclone winds, urban
coverage percentage, crop coverage percentage,
beach area, coastal forests area, wetlands area, GDP
per capita, Gini coefficient, child malnutrition rate,
child mortality rate, population
17 No named socio-economic index Toimil et al. (2017) Spain Wave height, storm surge, SLR, astronomical tide,
land use, assets (housing, industry), population,
assets (capital stock), activity flows
18 Climate Change Vulnerability Index for aviation and Debortoli et al. (2019) Canada (Arctic) SLR, rain, snow, winter-summer temperatures, airport
marine sectors sensitivity, marine sensitivity, disaster search and
rescue rates, emergency volunteers, education,
housing conditions, local language knowledge,
immigration ratio, population growth
19 CORI (Coastal Resilience Index) Gargiulo et al. (2020) USA, Netherlands, Denmark Coastal slope, water body proximity, distance from
coastline, urban permeable surface, raised build-
ings, conservation of buildings, transport network
proximity, ground floor activities, presence of public
facilities
Table 4 (continued)
20 Composite Climate Change Vulnerability Index Edmonds et al. (2020) Australia Ecosystem services, food, human habitat, health,
(CCCVI) infrastructure, water
21 Flood-Social Vulnerability Index El-Zein et al. (2021) Australia Extent of flooding, average maximum flood depth,
average maximum velocity, average flood duration,
household structure, English proficiency and school-
ing, immigration status and income, property rental/
ownership, unemployment, age, education
Page 19 of 25 29
13
Table 5 Socio-Economic Variables used in the literature

Variables Authors
Age of inhabitants Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Kleinosky et al. (2007),
Tate et al. (2010), Li and Li (2011), Satta (2014), Guillard-
Goncąlves et al. (2015), Zanetti et al. (2016), Tragaki et al. (2018),
Gargiulo et al. (2020), El-Zein et al. (2021)
Income (inhabitants’ annual income) Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Mackey and Russell (2011),
Ahsan and Warner (2014), Zanetti et al. (2016), El-Zein et al.
(2021)
Employment Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Guillard-Goncąlves et al.
(2015), Gargiulo et al. (2020), El-Zein et al. (2021)
Population (total numbers and popu- Wu et al. (2002), Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005),
lation density) Chakraborty et al. (2005), Tate et al. (2010), McLaughlin and
Cooper (2010), Li and Li (2011), Mackey and Russell (2011),
Balica et al. (2012), Mani Murali et al. (2013), Satta (2014), Satta
et al. (2015), Guillard-Goncąlves et al. (2015), Kantamaneni
(2016), Zanetti et al. (2016), Calil et al. (2017), Toimil et al.
(2017), Tragaki et al. (2018)
Housing units Wu et al. (2002), Cutter et al. (2003), Toimil et al. (2017)
Conservation of buildings Gargiulo et al. (2020)
Race Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Tate et al. (2010), Guillard-
Goncąlves et al. (2015)
Access to resources Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Chakraborty et al. (2005),
Guillard-Goncąlves et al. (2015)
Land use Li and Li (2011), McLaughlin and Cooper (2010), Mani Murali
et al. (2013), Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Satta (2014), Zanetti
et al. (2016), Gargiulo et al. (2020), Toimil et al. (2017), Yin et al.
(2012), El-Zein et al. (2021)
Cultural heritage McLaughlin and Cooper (2010), Li and Li (2011), Balica et al.
(2012), Mani Murali et al. (2013), Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Satta
(2014)
Infrastructure dependence Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Mani Murali et al. (2013),
Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Satta (2014), Hawchar et al. (2020),
Debortoli et al. (2019)
Tourism Satta (2014), Satta et al. (2015)
Awareness Balica et al. (2012), Satta (2014)
Economic openness/dependence Cutter et al. (2003), Boruff et al. (2005), Li and Li (2011), Briguglio
and Galea (2003), Alexandrakis et al. (2014), Ahsan and Warner
(2014)
led to many different approaches worldwide. Furthermore, the lack of consistency in the
selection of variables and indicators (especially socio-economic) is observed, whereas the
selection of geophysical indicators is rather standardized. Outcomes of models based on
geophysical approaches seem to be more consistent as well. This research demonstrates
that a broad range of variables have been used in this context, considering different types of
time and space scales for coastal process operation, categorizing into different intervals and
ranking each variable result in a large spectrum of vulnerability levels. However, in terms
of suitability for vulnerability classification, variable ranking is often controversial, as the
evaluation process highly depends on the personal opinion of the researchers.
The objective of this review paper was to provide a valid description of the key dimen-
sions of heterogeneity within research on climate change vulnerability. Through this
13
review, researchers and policy-makers can determine the gaps in knowledge on climate
change vulnerability of coastal areas, and the challenges that need to be addressed in future
research.
The absence of a specific framework for the selection of indicators was identified,
especially regarding social vulnerability. In most of the case studies, indicators have been
selected taking into consideration data availability and researchers’ aspirations. Moreo-
ver, researchers do not acknowledge concerns regarding static understanding of the human
environment in index-based vulnerability research. A holistic approach in the selection of
variables would be able to overcome these concerns, in order to identify not only areas in
danger, but also the level of vulnerability of people and communities at local scales, as
damage on crucial infrastructure will affect directly their livelihood.
Acknowledgements A graduate scholarship to C.N. Roukounis by the Research Committee of the National
Technical University of Athens is greatly appreciated.
Authors contribution CNR: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft; VAT:

Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing—
Review & Editing. Both authors approved the final paper.
Declarations
Competing interest There is no conflict of interest with regard to this work.
Availability of data and materials Not applicable.
References
Abuodha PA, Woodroffe CD (2006) Assessing vulnerability of coasts to climate change: A review of
approaches and their application to the Australian coast. GIS for the Coastal Zone: A Selection of
Papers from CoastGIS 2006, 458. 2006
Addo KA (2013) Assessing coastal vulnerability index to climate change: the Case of Accra – Ghana. J
Coastal Res 165:1892–1897. https://doi.org/10.2112/si65-320.1
Afentoulis V, Kragiopoulou E, Skarlatou E, Moschos E, Lykou A, Makropoulos C, Tsoukala V (2017)
Coastal processes assessment under extreme storm events using numerical modelling approaches.
Environ Process 4:731–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-017-0253-8
Ahsan MN, Warner J (2014) The socioeconomic vulnerability index: A pragmatic approach for assessing
climate change led risks—A case study in the south-western coastal Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk
Reduct 8:32–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.12.009
Alexandrakis G, Petrakis S, Ghionis G, Kampanis N, Poulos SE (2014) Natural and human indicators in
coastal vulnerability and risk assessment. In: 10th International Congress of the Hellenic Geographical
Society: pp. 644–655. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4033.5363
Asariotis R, Benamara H, Mohos-Naray V (2017) Port Industry Survey on Climate Impacts and Adaptation,
UNCTAD Research Paper No. 18, United Nations, December 2017
Bagdanavičiute I, Kelpšaite L, Soomere T (2015) Multi-criteria evaluation approach to coastal vulnerability
index development in micro-tidal low-lying areas. Ocean Coast Manag 104:124–135. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.011
Baker SM (2009) Vulnerability and resilience in natural disasters: a marketing and public policy perspec-
tive. J Public Policy Mark 28(1):114–123. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.28.1.114
Balica SF, Wright NG, van der Meulen F (2012) A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its
use in assessing climate change impacts. Nat Hazards 64(1):73–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-012-0234-1
Bevacqua E, Maraun D, Vousdoukas MI, Voukouvalas E, Vrac M, Mentaschi L, Widmann M (2019) Higher
probability of compound flooding from precipitation and storm surge in Europe under anthropogenic
climate change. Sci Adv 5(9):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5531
13
Blasiak R, Spijkers J, Tokunaga K, Pittman J, Nobuyuki Y, Österblom H (2017) Climate change and marine
fisheries: Least developed countries top global index of vulnerability. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0179632.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179632
Bonetti J, Klein AHF, Muler M, De Luca CB, Silva GV, Toldo EE Jr, Gonzalez M (2013) Spatial and
numerical methodologies on coastal erosion and flooding risk assessment. In: Finkl C (ed) Coastal
Hazards. Chapter 16. Coastal Research Library Series, pp. 423–442. Dordrecht, Springer
Boruff BJ, Emrich C, Cutter SL (2005) Erosion hazard vulnerability of us coastal counties. J Coastal Res
215:932–942. https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0172.1
Briguglio L, Galea W (2003) Updating and augmenting the economic vulnerability index. Occasional paper,
Islands and Small States Institute of the University of Malta 4:1–15 https://www.um.edu.mt/library/
oar/handle/123456789/18371. Accessed 01/12/2020
Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research. Working paper 38. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, UK. https://gsdrc.org/document-library/vulnerability-risk-and-adaptation-a-conceptual-
framework/ (Accessed on 20/05/2021)
Calil J, Reguero BG, Zamora AR, Losada IJ, Méndez FJ (2017) Comparative coastal risk index (CCRI): A
multidisciplinary risk index for Latin America and the Caribbean. PLoS ONE 12(11):1–24. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187011
Chakraborty J, Tobin G, Montz B (2005) Population evacuation: assessing spatial variability in geophysical
risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Nat Hazards Rev 6(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1527-6988(2005)6:1(23)
Chen C, Noble I, Hellmann J, Coffee J, Murillo M, Chawkla N (2015) University of Notre Dame global
adaptation index country index technical report. ND-GAIN, South Bend, IN, USA. https://gain.nd.edu/
assets/254377/nd_gain_technical_document_2015.pdf. Accessed 02/10/2021
Christian Aid (2021) Counting the cost 2021: A year of climate breakdown. Edited by Kramer K., Ware J.
Report, Christian Aid, London, UK. No of pages: 25 https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/
2021-12/Counting%20the%20cost%202021%20-%20A%20year%20of%20climate%20breakdown.pdf
(Accessed on 18/03/2022)
Comte A, Pendleton L, Bailly D, Quillérou E (2019) Conceptual advances on global scale assessments of
vulnerability: Informing investments for coastal populations at risk of climate change. Mar Policy
99:391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.038
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q
84(2):242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002
Dawson RJ, Dickson ME, Nicholls RJ, Hall JW, Walkden MJA, Mokrech M, Richards J, Zhou J, Miligan
J, Jordan A, Pearson S, Rees J, Bates PD, Koukoulas S, Watkinson AR (2009) Integrated analysis of
risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long term change. Clim Change 95:249–
288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9532-8
Debortoli NS, Clark DG, Ford JD, Sayles JS, Diaconescu EP (2019) An integrative climate change vulner-
ability index for Arctic aviation and marine transportation. Nat Commun 10(1):2596. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41467-019-10347-1
Devoy RJN (2008) Coastal vulnerability and the implications of sea-level rise for Ireland. J Coastal Res
242:325–341. https://doi.org/10.2112/07a-0007.1
Doukakis E (2005) Coastal vulnerability and risk parameters. European Water 11(12):3–7
Eckstein D, Winges M, Künzel V, Schäfer L(2020) Global Climate Risk Index 2020 - Who Suffers Most
from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2018 and 1999 to 2018. Germanwatch
e.V., Bonn, Germany. https://germanwatch.org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/20-2-01e%20Global%20Cli
mate%20Risk%20Index%202020_10.pdf (Accessed on 01/09/2021)
Edmonds HK, Lovell JE, Lovell CAK (2020) A new composite climate change vulnerability index. Ecol
Indic 117 (106259). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106529
Ellen IG, Yager J, Hanson M, Bosher L (2016) Planning for an uncertain future: can multicriteria analysis
support better decision making in climate planning? J Plan Educ Res 36(3):349–362. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0739456X16659911
El-Zein A, Ahmed T, Tonmoy F (2021) Geophysical and social vulnerability to floods at municipal scale
under climate change: The cage of an inner-city suburb of Sydney. Ecol Indic 121:106988
Ford JD, Pearce T, McDowell G, Berrang-Ford L, Sayles JS, Belfer E (2018) Vulnerability and its discon-
tents: The past, present and future of climate change vulnerability research. Clim Change 151:189–203
Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Karymbalis E, Poulos S, Zouva C (2010) Coastal vulnerability assessment to sea-
level rise based on geomorphological and oceanographical parameters: the case of Argolikos Gulf.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235960304
13
Gargiulo C, Battarra R, Tremiterra MR (2020) Coastal areas and climate change: A decision support tool for
implementing adaptation measures. Land Use Policy 91:104413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.
2019.104413
Giannakidou C, Diakoulaki D, Memos C (2020) Vulnerability to coastal flooding of industrial urban areas
in Greece. Environ Process 7:749–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-020-00442-7
Giri S, Lathrop RG, Obropta CG (2020) Climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategies
through best management practices. J Hydrol 580:124311
Gornitz V (1991) Global coastal hazards from future sea level rise. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol
89(4):379–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-0182(91)90173-O
Gornitz VM, Daniels RC, White TW, Birdwell KR (1994) The development of a coastal risk assessment
database: vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. Southeast. J Coastal Res 12:327–338. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/25735608
Guillard-Goncąlves C, Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Zêzere JL (2015) Application of social vulnerability index
(SoVI) and delineation of natural risk zones in Greater Lisbon, Portugal. J Risk Res 18(5):651–674.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.910689
Hallegate S, Przyluski V (2010) The economics of natural disasters: concepts and methods. Policy
research working paper 5507, The World Bank, Sustainable Development Network, December
2010. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/3991 (Accessed on 04/10/2021)
Hawchar L, Naughton O, Nolan P, Stewart MG, Ryan PC (2020) A GIS-based framework for high-level
climate change risk assessment of critical infrastructure. Clim Risk Manag 29:100235. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100235
Heinz Center (2002) Human Links to Coastal Disasters. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Eco-
nomics and the Environment. Washington D.C., U.S.A., ISBN-10: 0971759227
Hinkel J (2011) Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: Towards a clarification of the science-
policy interface. Glob Environ Chang 21:198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation And Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. JJ
McCarthy, OF Canziani, NA Leary, DJ Dokken, KS White (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, UK, and New York, USA, 1032p
IPCC (2014) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulner-
ability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assess-
ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ,
Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B,
Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–32
Islam N, Winkel J (2017) Climate Change and Social Inequality. UN Department of Economic and
Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers, No. 152, UN, New York, https://doi.org/10.18356/2c623
35d-en
Jun KS, Chung ES, Sung JY (2011) Development of spatial water resources vulnerability index consid-
ering climate change impacts. Sci Total Environ 409(24):5228–5242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito
tenv.2011.08.027
Kantamaneni K (2016) Coastal infrastructure vulnerability: an integrated assessment model. Nat Haz-
ards 84(1):139–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2413-y
Karymbalis E, Chalkias C, Chalkias G, Grigoropoulou E, Manthos G, Ferentinou M (2012) Assessment
of the sensitivity of the southern coast of the Gulf of Corinth (Peloponnese, Greece) to sea-level
rise. Central Eur J Geosci 4(4):561–577. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13533-012-0101-3
Kleinosky LR, Yarnal B, Fisher A (2007) Vulnerability of Hampton roads, Virginia to storm-surge
flooding and sea-level rise. Nat Hazards 40(1):43–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0004-z
Kokkinos D, Prinos P, Galiatsatou P (2014) Assessment of coastal vulnerability for present and future
climate conditions in coastal areas of the Aegean Sea. 11th International Conference on Hydrosci-
ence & Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 28 September-2 October 2014. https://www.researchga
te.net/publication/266561166_Assessment_of_coastal_vulnerability_for_present_and_future_clima
te_conditions_in_coastal_areas_of_the_Aegean_Sea (Accessed on 22/06/2021)
Kourtis IM, Tsihrintzis VA (2021) Adaptation of urban drainage networks to climate change: A review.
Sci Total Environ 771:145431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145431
Li K, Li GS (2011) Vulnerability assessment of storm surges in the coastal area of Guangdong Province.
Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 11(7):2003–2010. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2003-2011
Li L, Cao R, Wei K, Wang W, Chen L (2019) Adapting climate change challenge: A new vulnerability
assessment framework from the global perspective. J Clean Prod 217:216–224
13
Malone EL, Engle NL (2011) Evaluating regional vulnerability to climate change: purposes and meth-
ods. Wires Clim Change 2(3):462–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.116
Malliouri D, Afentoulis V, Bonaros V, Memos C, Tsoukala V (2017) Integrated design of coastal structures
and adaptation to climate change hazards. 1 5th International Conference on Environmental Science and
Technology, Rhodes, Greece, 31 August – 2 September 2017. https://cest2017.gnest.org/sites/default/
files/presentation_file_list/cest2017_00880_oral_paper.pdf (accessed on 08/11/2021)
Malvarez G, Ferreira O, Navas F, Cooper JAG, Gracia-Prieto FJ, Talavera L (2021) Storm impacts
on a coupled human-natural coastal system: Resilience of developed coasts. Sci Total Environ
768:144987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.144987
Mani Murali R, Ankita M, Amrita S, Vethamony P (2013) Coastal vulnerability assessment of Puduch-
erry coast, India, using the analytical hierarchical process. Nat Hazard 13(12):3291–3311. https://
doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-3291-2013
Maragoudaki R, Tsakiris G (2005) Flood mitigation planning using Promethee. Eur Water 9–10:51–58
Masselink G, Lazarus E (2019) Defining coastal resilience. Water 11(12):2587. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w11122587
McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and
human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urban 19:17–37
McIntosh RD, Becker A (2019) Expert evaluation of open-data indicators of seaport vulnerability to cli-
mate and extreme weather impacts for U.S. North Atlantic ports. Ocean Coast Manag 180:104911
McLaughlin S, Cooper JAG (2010) A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: A tool for coastal manag-
ers? Environ Hazards 9(3):233–248. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.0052
Mendoza ET, Jiménez JA (2009) Regional geomorphic vulnerability analysis to storms for Catalan
beaches. Proc Inst Civ Eng Marit Eng 162(3):127–135. https://doi.org/10.1680/maen.2009.162.3.
127
Messina L, Poljansek K, Vernaccini L (2019) Usage of INFORM GRI in Humanitarian Aid and Devel-
opment Assistance Initiatives: Results of the INFORM GRI’s Impact Survey. EUR 29894 EN, Pub-
lications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978–92–76–12302–6 (pdf), https://doi.
org/10.2760/591043 (Access date 28–03–2022)
Meyer V, Becker N, Markantonis V, Schwarze R, van den Bergh JCJM, Bouwer LM, Bubeck P, Ciavola
P, Genovese E, Green C, Hallegatte S, Kreibich H, Lequeux Q, Logar I, Papyrakis E, Pfurtscheller
C, Poussin J, Przyluski V, Thieken AH, Viavattene C (2013) Review article: Assessing the costs
of natural hazards – state of the art and knowledge gaps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(5):1351–
1373. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013
Morris LL, Sempier T (2016) Ports resilience expert committee (2016) ports resilience index: a port
management self-assessment 28. https://masgc.org/assets/images/Ports_resilience_index.pdf.
Accessed on 28/03/2022
Nguyen T, Bonetti J, Rogers K, Woodroffe CD (2016) Indicator-based assessment of climate change
impacts on coasts: A review of concepts, methodological approaches and vulnerability indices.
Ocean Coast Manag 123:18–43
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) (2021) The
PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pantusa D, D’Alessandro F, Riefolo L, Principato F, Tomasicchio GR (2018) Application of coastal vu
0lnerability index. a case study along the Apulian Coastline, Italy. Water 10(9):1208
Pendleton EA, Thieler ER, Williams SJ, Beavers R (2004) Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of Cumber-
land Island National Seashore (CUIS) to sea-level rise. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1196/ofr20
041196.pdf (Accessed on 16/10/2020)
Pistrika A, Tsakiris G, Nalbantis I (2014) Flood depth-damage functions for built environment. Environ
Process 1(4):553–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-014-0038-2
Poljansek K, Vernaccini L, Nweke E, Marin Ferrer M (2020) Imputation of missing values in the
INFORM Global Risk Index, EUR 30037 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxem-
bourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-14657-5. https://doi.org/10.2760/97910JRC119496
Preston BL, Jones R (2008) A national assessment of the sensitivity of Australian runoff to climate
change. Atmos Sci Lett 9(4):202–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.188
Rao KN, Subraelu P, Rao TV, Malini BH, Ratheesh R, Bhattacharya S, Rajawat AS, Ajai (2008) Sea-
level rise and coastal vulnerability: An assessment of Andhra Pradesh coast, India through remote
sensing and GIS. J Coast Conserv 12(4):195–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-009-0042-2
Roukouni A (2016) Investigation of innovative financing schemes for transportation projects. PhD The-
sis, Department of Rural and Surveying Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki, Greece, October 2016 (in Greek)
13
Roukounis CN, Aretoulis G, Karambas T (2020) A combination of PROMETHEE and Goal-Program-

ming methods for the evaluation of water airport connections. Int J Decis Support Syst Technol
12(2):50–66. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDSST.2020040103
Rus K, Kilar V, Koren D (2018) Resilience assessment of complex urban systems to natural disasters: A new
literature review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 31:311–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.05.015
Saaty RW (1987) The Analytic Hierarchy Process-what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9:161–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
Satta A (2014) An index-based method to assess vulnerabilities and risks of Mediterranean coastal zones
to multiple hazards - Un Indice per la valutazione delle vulnerabilità e dei rischi generati da mul-
tiple pericolosità sulle zone costiere del Mediterraneo. Doctoral dissertation submitted in October
2014 to the Department of Economics Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Italy. https://doi.org/10.
13140/RG.2.1.4825.4969
Satta A, Venturini S, Puddu M, Firth J, Lafitte A (2015) Strengthening the Knowledge Base on Regional
Climate Variability and Change: Application of a Multi-Scale Coastal Risk Index at Regional and
Local Scale in the Mediterranean. Plan Bleu Technical Report-September 2015. https://planbleu.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/multi-scale_coastal_r isk_index_compressed.pdf (accessed on
10/01/2021)
Tate E, Cutter SL, Berry M (2010) Integrated multihazard mapping. Environ Plann B Plann Des
37(4):646–663. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35157
Thieler ER, Hammar-Klose ES (1999) National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise.
Open-File Report 0–179, 1. https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds68/reports/gulfrep.pdf (accessed 19/11/2020)
Tibbetts JR, van Proosdij D (2013) Development of a relative coastal vulnerability index in a macro-tidal
environment for climate change adaptation. J Coast Conserv 17(4):775–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11852-013-0277-9
Toimil A, Losada IJ, Díaz-Simal P, Izaguirre C, Camus P (2017) Multi-sectoral, high-resolution assessment
of climate change consequences of coastal flooding. Clim Change 145(3–4):431–444. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-017-2104-z
Torresan S, Critto A, Dalla Valle M, Harvey N, Marcomini A (2008) Assessing coastal vulnerability to
climate change: Comparing segmentation at global and regional scales. Sustain Sci 3(1):45–65. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0045-1
Tragaki A, Gallousi C, Karymbalis E (2018) Coastal hazard vulnerability assessment based on geomorphic,
oceanographic and demographic parameters. Land 7(2):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020056
Tsoukala V, Chondros M, Kapelonis Z, Martzikos N, Lykou A, Belibassakis K, Makropoulos C (2016) An
integrated wave modelling framework for extreme and rare events for climate change in coastal areas
- The case of Rethymno, Crete. Oceanologia 58:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2016.01.002
United Nations (2015) The Paris Agreement. Conference of the Parties, United Nations Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change, Paris, November-December 2015. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/engli
sh_paris_agreement.pdf. Accessed 21/09/2020
Uyarra M, Côté I, Gill JA, Tinch RRT, Viner D, Watkinson AR (2005) Island-specific preferences of tour-
ists for environmental features: implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environ
Conserv 32(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892904001808
Wahl T, Brown S, Haigh I, Nilsen JEØ (2018) Coastal sea levels, impacts and adaptation. J Marine Sci Eng
6(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse6010019
World Risk Report (2019) Focus: water supply. Day JS, Forster T, Himmelsbach J, Korte L, Mucke P, Radke
K, Thielborger P, Weller D. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and Ruhr University Bochum – Institute for
International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (IFHV), Berlin, Germany. https://reliefweb.int/sites/
reliefweb.int/files/resources/WorldRiskReport-2019_Online_english.pdf. Accessed 20/12/2020
Wu SY, Yarnal B, Fisher A (2002) Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise: A case study of
Cape May County, New Jersey, USA. Climate Res 22(3):255–270. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr022255
Yin J, Yin Z, Wang J, Xu S (2012) National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise for the Chi-
nese coast. J Coast Conserv 16:123–133
Zampazas G, Karymbalis E, Chalkias C (2022) Assessment of the sensitivity of Zakynthos Island (Ionian
Sea, Western Greece) to climate change-induced coastal hazards. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphol 63(2–
3):183–200. https://doi.org/10.1127/zfg/2021/0730
Zanetti VB, de Sousa WC Jr, de Freitas DM (2016) A climate change vulnerability index and case study in a
Brazilian Coastal City. Sustainability 8(8):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080811
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Indices of Coastal Vulnerability To Climate Change: A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indices of Coastal Vulnerability To Climate Change: A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Processes (2022) 9: 29

Indices of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change: a Review

Charalampos Nikolaos Roukounis1 · Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis1

Keywords Climate change · Sea-level rise · Vulnerability Assessment · Vulnerability

papers on climate-change vulnerability and resilience indices related to coastal water

Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart – Study methodology of excluded and included articles

3 Addressing Vulnerability and Resilience in a Changing Climate

3.1 Tools for Aggregation/Evaluation of Variables

The majority of the approaches in the literature promote a static understanding of

3.2 Different Approaches to Coastal Vulnerability and Resilience Indexation

shoreline displacement, tidal range, wave height

beach, presence of Posidonia Oceanica

Table 2 Geophysical Variables used in the literature

Storm surge Mendoza and Jiménez (2009), Balica et al. (2012),

Table 3 Social Coastal Vulnerability Indices found in the literature

4 Summary and Conclusions

females, Number of non-white residents, Number

rate, annual average income per capita, number of

length, percentile of disabled people, shelters,

percentage of households with family member with

value of the place, coastal erosion, high growth

Table 5 Socio-Economic Variables used in the literature

Authors contribution CNR: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft; VAT:

Availability of data and materials Not applicable.

Roukounis CN, Aretoulis G, Karambas T (2020) A combination of PROMETHEE and Goal-Program-

You might also like

3 Addressing Vulnerability and Resilience in a Changing Climate

3.1 Tools for Aggregation/Evaluation of Variables

3.2 Different Approaches to Coastal Vulnerability and Resilience Indexation

4 Summary and Conclusions