Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 4.3.2.2 Settlement Trends ==== <div id="section-4-3-2-2settlement-trends-block-1"></div> Major changes in coastal settlement patterns have occurred in the course of the 20th century, and are continuing to take place due to various complex interacting processes (Moser et al., 2012; Bennett et al., 2016) that together configure and concentrate exposure and vulnerability to climate change and SLR along the coast (Newton et al., 2012; Bennett et al., 2016) . These processes include population growth and demographic changes (Smith, 2011; Neumann et al., 2015) , urbanisation and a rural exodus, tourism development, and displacement or (re)settlement of some indigenous communities (Ford et al., 2015) . This has resulted in a growing number of people living in the Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ, coastal areas below 10 m of elevation; around 11% of the world’s population in 2010; Neumann et al., 2015; Jones and O’Neill, 2016; Merkens et al., 2016) and in significant infrastructure and assets being located in risk-prone areas ( ''high confidence'' ). High density coastal urban development is commonplace in both developed and developing countries, as documented in recent case studies, for example in Canada (Fawcett et al., 2017) , China (Yin et al., 2015; Lilai et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2016) , Fiji (Hay, 2017) , France (Genovese and Przyluski, 2013; Chadenas et al., 2014; Magnan and Duvat, 2018) , Israel (Felsenstein and Lichter, 2014) , Kiribati (Storey and Hunter, 2010; Duvat et al., 2013) , New Zealand (Hart, 2011) and the USA (Heberger, 2012; Grifman et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016b) . This has implications for levels of SLR risk at regional and local scales ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ). In Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, it is estimated that 6–8% of the population live in areas that are at high or very high risk of being affected by coastal hazards (Reguero et al., 2015; Calil et al., 2017; Villamizar et al., 2017) , with higher percentages in Caribbean islands (Mycoo, 2018) . In the Pacific, ~57% of Pacific Island countries’ built infrastructure are located in risk-prone coastal areas (Kumar and Taylor, 2015) . In Kiribati, due to the flow of outer, rural populations to limited, low-elevated capital islands, together with constraints inherent in the sociocultural land tenure system, the built area located <20 m from the shoreline quadrupled between 1969 and 2007–2008 (Duvat et al., 2013) . Other examples of rural exodus are reported in the recent literature, for example in the Maldives (Speelman et al., 2017) . Population densification also affects rural areas’ exposure and vulnerability, and interacts with other factors shaping settlement patterns, such as the fact that ‘indigenous peoples in multiple geographical contexts have been pushed into marginalised territories that are more sensitive to climate impacts, in turn limiting their access to food, cultural resources, traditional livelihoods and place-based knowledge (…) [and therefore undermining] aspects of social-cultural resilience’ (Ford et al., 2016b, p. 350) . In the Pacific, for example, ‘while traditional settlements on high islands (…) were often located inland, the move to coastal locations was encouraged by colonial and religious authorities and more recently through the development of tourism’ (Ballu et al., 2011; Nurse et al., 2014, p. 1623; Duvat et al., 2017) . Although these population movements are orders of magnitude smaller than the global trends described above, they play a critical role at the very local scale in explaining the emergence of, or changes in exposure and vulnerability. In atoll contexts, for example, the growing pressure on freshwater resources together with a loss in local knowledge (e.g., how to collect water from palm trees), result in increased exposure of communities to brackish, polluted groundwater, inducing water insecurity and health problems (Storey and Hunter, 2010; Lazrus, 2015) . <div id="section-4-3-2-4other-human-dimensions"></div> <span id="other-human-dimensions"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
Add languages
Add topic