[管理学]Case Study Climate Change and Coastal Management in Practice – A cost-benefit assessment in the Hum.docVIP

Case Study Climate Change and Coastal Management in Practice – A cost-benefit assessment in the Humber UK. Emma Coombes, Diane Burgess, Nina Jackson, Kerry Turner and Sarah Cornell In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that human intervention is increasing the rate of atmospheric temperature rise and that this is affecting global sea levels due to thermal expansion of the sea and melting of ice on land. Over the last 100 years, the world has experienced an increase in mean temperature of about 0.5?C and sea level has risen by 10-20cm (Gornitz, 1993). Although there is much uncertainty over the precise impacts of climate change, it seems likely that this general rise in temperature and sea level will continue for the foreseeable future (Wigley and Raper, 1993). In the face of such a change in sea level, this case study of a cost-benefit analysis is undertaken of coastal flood management in the Humber catchment of the UK, presenting generic guidelines that enable the methodology to be transferable between countries. In the UK, there are currently nearly 2 million properties lying in floodplains along rivers, estuaries and coasts that are at risk from flooding, with an average annual damage costs of over ￡1000 million with over ￡450 million being spent on flood management costs in 2003-2004 (DEFRA, 2002, Foresight, 2004). Foresight (2004) estimate that given flood management policies and expenditure remain unchanged, annual flood losses would increase between ￡1 billion to ￡27 billion by the 2080s. The traditional method of flood management has been to construct structural or ‘hard’ defences, such as sea walls to protect land and also to reclaim land for development. Intensive construction periods occurred around the time of the First and Second World Wars (1914-1918, 1939-1945) when the need for agricultural self-sufficiency was paramount. Although the contemporary belief was that this was best practice, it is now recognised tha