UBV_soutenance_v5

Integrated Vulnerability Assessment
of Coastal Communities to Natural Hazards
in a Climate Change Context:
The Cases of Avignon (Canada), Kilkeel (United Kingdom)
and Chipiona (Spain)
Ursule Boyer-Villemaire
Direction:P. Bernatchez, J.A.G. Cooper, J. Benavente
Soutenance de doctorat en sciences de l’environnement, UQAR
Rimouski, 1er mars 2016

Plan
• Literature review and intentions
• Chapter 1: Quantification of risk awareness
• Chapter 2: Quantification of risk governance
perceptions
• Chapter 3: Diagnosis of integrated coastal
vulnerability at community scale
• Discussion and conclusions
2

Coastal erosion
UBV,Îles-de-la-Madeleine,GrandeEntrée,06/2009
1 (Church et al.,2013; Horton et al.,2014; Jevrejeva et al.,2014; Slangen et al.,
2014; Han et al.,2015;...)
2 (Feser et al.2015; Gulev et al.,2013; Zwiers et al.,2013; Obeysekera and Park,
2013; Tebaldi et al.,2012)
3 (Anderson et al.,2015; Leatherman et al.,2000)
4 (Boucher-Brossard et al.,2015;Bernatchez and Dubois,2004;Del Rio et al.,
2013)
5 (Didier et al.,2015, Peng and Zou, 2011; Van der Meer et al.,2009)
6 (De Vries,2011)
7 (Bruun, 1962; Schwartz, 1967; Hands,1983, R.N. Dubois,1992;2001)
8 (Cooper and Pilkey,2004;Thieler et al.,2000, Davidson-Arnott,2005; Ranasinghe
and Stive, 2009)
9 (Benavente et al.,2006; Thieler et al.,2009;Brooks and Spencer, 2012; Del R’o et
al.,2013; (Cenci et al., 2015; Kabuth and Kroon, 2014)
10 (Young et al.,2014)
11 (Sunamara,1988;SCAPE - Walkden and Dickson,2008;Castedo et al.,2013)
12 (Le Cozannet et al.,2014)
3

Vulnerability to coastal hazards
"The characteristics and circumstancesof a
community, system or asset that make it susceptible to
the damaging effects of a hazard […] arising from
various physical, social, economic, and environmental
factors"
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR, 2009)
(IPCC CZCS, 1992; UNISDR et al., 2010)
(ADEME, 2013; MDDELCC, 2015)
• Prescribed by UNISDR, IPCC and governments
4

Approaches
Ionescu et al., 2009; McFadden et al., 2007
V(t) = Impacts(t) – Adaptation(t-1)
Füssel, 2007
Integrated
Multi-scale
Gutierrez et al., 2009
Meur-Férecet al. 2008
Multicriteria
Cutter et al., 2008
Spatial
5

Main Literature Gaps
1. A "just" use of vulnerability assessment with erosion
• predictive + inductive; internal vs. external
2. Adaptation structures : adequacy and maladaptation
3. Risk perceptions
4. Risk governance perceptions in a CC context
5. Institutional context as a factor of vulnerability
6. Intangible landscape values
1. Hinkel,2013
2. Bernatchez et al.,2011; Cooper and Pilkey,(2012)
3. Meur-Férec et al,2008;Orford and McFadden, 2002
4. Lemieux et al.,2013
5. Meur-Férec et al,2008;Armitage et al.,2009; Billé,2006;Watts and Bohle, 1993
6. Tunstall and Tapsell,2007;Brown and Reed, 2009
7. Cutter et al,2008 ; Van Alstet al,2008
7. Operationalization challenge
General objective:Develop a diagnosis method based on factors of
vulnerability to improve the integration of [the 6 previous components]into
coastal vulnerability assessements
•Just (scientific validity)
•Operational
6

•Climate grading
•Similarities: gemorphology, erosion
and submersion hazards, meso-tidal
•Similarities: socio-economical
Approach: Comparisonof small communities
aroundNorth Atlantic
Avignon (Carleton-Maria), Baie des
Chaleurs, Québec, Canada
Cold maritimetemperate
AVI
Kilkeel,Co. Newry & Mourne,
Irlandedu Nord (UK)
Maritime temperate
KIL
Chipiona,Cádiz, Spain
Oceanic mediterranean
CHI
AVI: Bernatchez et al.,2012a.Bernatchez et al.,2011;Gehrels et al.,2004; Koohzare et al.,
2006; Koohzare et al.,2008) + Han et al.,(2014); James et al.(2015)
KIL: Orford and McFadden, 2002; Woodworth et al,2009b
CHI: Del Rio et al.,2013; Dominguez et al.,2004;Gomez-Pina et al.,2012; Del Rio et al.,
2012; Marcos et al.,2011
AVI KIL CHI
Erosion rate -0.3 to 0 m/yr -0.1 to 0.5 m/yr -3 to -0.75 m/yr
Events
Erosion/Flood
Dec. 2010
[Erosion; Flood]
Feb. 2002
[Flood]
Wint. 2009-10
[Flood]
Sea level
(period)
+1.09 mm/yr
(1964-2003)
Stable
(20th century)
+0.1 mm/yr
(1880-2009)
77

Main methods
1. Coastal
classification
1., Modified from Freiseinger and Bernatchez, 2010
2. Brown, 2006; Brown and Reed, 2009.
3. Modified from Drejza et al.,2011; Freiseinger and Bernatchez, 2010;Boyer-Villemaireet al.,2014
4. Cornillon etal.2010
AVI KIL CHI Total
km 13/50 55 25 130
AVI KIL CHI Total
n 57 36 32 125
AVI KIL CHI Total
n 24 10 9 43
4. Statistical approach
• Significantdifferences across areas (prop.test; chi-square)
• Correlations
• Multivariatecorrespondanceanalysis with descriptors
3. Semi-structured
interviews
2. Systematicsurvey of
citizens
8

UBV, 2010. Kilkeel&Annalong, NI.
CHAPTER 1
Quantifying Risk Awareness

Background - Intention
1. Perceptionof dreadfulness
2. Perceptionof uncertainty
3. Intendedbehavioural changeStarr, 1969
Starr, 1969
Orford and McFadden, 2002
• Factors of influence on perceptions across areas
1. Perception of dreadfulness: comparison with scientific literature +
personal experience of the coast (+ / -)
2. Perception of uncertainty: causes, trends
3. Intented behavioural change: favor for sustainable/preventive solutions
• Indicators robust across coastal areas and pertinent for vulnerability
• Semi-quantitative approach + multivariate statistics with descriptors
Loewestein et al.,2001; Dessai and Sims,2010;B. Slovic,1987;O’Connor et al.,1999 10
Functional awareness of environmentalrisks
“a certain consciousness level that changes behaviour,other expressed as
awareness that has a functionalvalidity" (Orford and McFadden, 2002)

Example of data treatment
Factors of perception: composition of MCA factor 1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
%positiveanswer
Observed presence of natural phenomena (n=125)
P<0.05 P<0.05 P<0.05P<0.05
Test of equivalence of proportions (χ2) (Cornillon et al., 2010)
AVI
KIL
CHI
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Mean(abs
(loadingofeachclass
infactor1))
P<0.05
1112
Total

Functional awareness
Comparison with scientific and institutional literature:
•(nb. concordance- nb. opposition)/total nb. phenomena 3 2 1 6
Personal experience of the coast:
•Sum of activities practiced by all respondents/total
maximum potential score
•Past disasters experience (1/0)
•Mean duration in the community
3
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
6
5
6
Ability to understand complex interactions:
•Human activity as a cause of coastal erosion (%)
•Relationship with coastal erosion (local) and climate
change (global) (%)
•Nb. phenomena with sum of trends >50%/total nb.
•Education level (mean ISCDE-2011 level)
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
7
7
6
7
Attitude towards solutions:
•Nb. Management & preventive solutions in top-6
•Mean nb. Selected solutions by participants / total nb.
solutions proposed
•Agreement: nb. Solutions <25% or > 75%
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
7
6
5
DreadfulnessUncertaintyBehaviroral
change
Criteria AVI KIL CHI Total
TOTAL (/33) 29 24 16 1213

Comparison with scientific and institutional literature:
•(nb. concordance- nb. opposition)/total nb. phenomena 3 2 1 6
Personal experience of the coast:
•Sum of activities practiced by all respondents/total
maximum potential score
•Past disasters experience (1/0)
•Mean duration in the community
3
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
6
5
6
Ability to understand complex interactions:
•Human activity as a cause of coastal erosion (%)
•Relationship with coastal erosion (local) and climate
change (global) (%)
•Nb. phenomena with sum of trends >50%/total nb.
•Education level (mean ISCDE-2011 level)
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
7
7
6
7
Attitude towards solutions:
•Nb. Management & preventive solutions in top-6
•Mean nb. Selected solutions by participants / total nb.
solutions proposed
•Agreement: nb. Solutions <25% or > 75%
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
7
6
5
DreadfulnessUncertaintyBehaviroral
change
Criteria AVI KIL CHI Total
TOTAL (/33) 29 24 16 1314

Discussion
Key factor: Information and education:
– AVI: High level of educated new comers, sinking information
– Lower identification and concordance in CHI:
• 20% illeteracy
• Ackowledgment by the community about lack of information
– Role of local environmental organizations
AVI > KIL > CHI
1A) Friesingerand Bernatchez, 2010
1B) FBBVA, 2007; Dominguez-Arcos et al. ,2011.
2A) Betts, 2002
2B) Cooper and Pilkey, 2010,
2C) MacInnis et al., 2013
14

Conclusion
Reliable and low resources method for quantifying
functional awareness
 Advances in repeatability, translation
 Thourough statistical approach leading to indicator
selection
 Output: point out to vulnerability factors/adaptive capacity
tracks
15

CHAPTER 2
Quantifying Perceptions of Risk Governance

Background - Intention
Factors submitted to individual processing Factor defined by inter-actors relationships
Cognitive bias
Functional affective context
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1974)
Adaptation intention
Citizens-managers
functional coherence
(Grothman and Patt, 2005)
• Factors influencing citizens’ perceptionsof governance across areas
1. Attitude towards the topic
2. Attitude toward the management
3. Feeling of controlin the management
• Comparison citizens vs. managers on preferences for actors
1. Inclusiveness
2. Leadership
3. Understandingof mutual role
• Indicatorsrobust across coastal areasand pertinent for vulnerability
assessment
• Semi-quantitativeapproachand multivariateanalysison descriptors
2. Mitchell et al.,1997
17

CC
NCTour.
Mun.
MRC
Prov.
Féd.
Cont.
Int.
Univ.
Comm.Ind.
ZIP
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
Preferences for actors involved
CC
NCTour.
Mun.
MRC
Prov.
Féd.
Cont.Int.
Univ.Comm.Ind.
ZIP
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
Citizens
Managers
Responsibilitymeanranking(0-4)
Decisionmeanranking (0-4)
*Disagreement about role of
- MRCs/ regional level
- fédéral
*Citizens perceive themselves
higher than the managers
*Citizens value more experts and
academic
AVI
n = 57
n = 19
Multivariatecorrespondance
analysis:
<15% variance explained by F1 +F2
18

Citizens-managers functional coherence
Criteria1 AVI KIL CHI Total
Common understanding of most/nb. of legitimate stakeholders indecision
•Number of comon major actor(s) (class I) 3 2 1 6
Common understanding of the public nature of the stakes(citizen groups diversity)
•Common class (at least group II) for non-coastal residents (residents vs. mnagers)
•Difference (abs) (residents-managers) of place devolved to citizens in responsibility > 0.75
3
2
2
3
1
1
6
6
Common understanding of leadership
• Same highly responsible actor (residents vs. managers)?
• Difference (abs) of lead actors responsibility score (residents vs. managers) < 0.75?
3
3
1
3
3
1
7
7
Residentdecisional role (1,2)
•Difference (abs) (residents-managers) of place devolved to coastal residents in decisions <
0.75?
•Same participation class for coastal residents (residents vs. managers)?
1
3
1
3
3
1
5
7
Localgovernment decisional role (4)
•Difference (abs) (residents-managers) of scores of local gvt. in decisions < 0.75?
•Same participation class for lcoal gvt. (residents vs. managers)?
3
3
3
3
3
1
9
7
Government decisional and collaborationrole (5,6,7)
•Managers’ perception of cross-level collaboration: nb. gvt levels in major class (I)
•Nb. gvt levels class unmatch (residents-managers)
1
1
2
2
2
3
5
6
InclusivenessLeader-
ship
Mutualroles
TOTAL (/33) 26 25 20
1 Colors have been attributed only for the sake of illustrating the differences across areas; thresholds for A were 3=green, 2=yellow, 1=red; thresholds for
B to F were 5-6=green, 3-4=yellow, 1-2=red.
1921

Citizens-managers functional coherence
Common understanding of most/nb. of legitimate stakeholders indecision
•Number of comon major actor(s) (class I) 3 2 1 6
Common understanding of the public nature of the stakes(citizen groups diversity)
•Common class (at least group II) for non-coastal residents (residents vs. mnagers)
•Difference (abs) (residents-managers) of place devolved to citizens in responsibility > 0.75
3
2
2
3
1
1
6
6
Common understanding of leadership
• Same highly responsible actor (residents vs. managers)?
• Difference (abs) of lead actors responsibility score (residents vs. managers) < 0.75?
3
3
1
3
3
1
7
7
Residentdecisional role (1,2)
•Difference (abs) (residents-managers) of place devolved to coastal residents in decisions <
0.75?
•Same participation class for coastal residents (residents vs. managers)?
1
3
1
3
3
1
5
7
Localgovernment decisional role (4)
•Difference (abs) (residents-managers) of scores of local gvt. in decisions < 0.75?
•Same participation class for lcoal gvt. (residents vs. managers)?
3
3
3
3
3
1
9
7
Government decisional and collaborationrole (5,6,7)
•Managers’ perception of cross-level collaboration: nb. gvt levels in major class (I)
•Nb. gvt levels class unmatch (residents-managers)
1
1
2
2
2
3
5
6
InclusivenessLeader-
ship
Mutualroles
TOTAL (/33) 26 25 20
1 Colors have been attributed only for the sake of illustrating the differences across areas; thresholds for A were 3=green, 2=yellow, 1=red; thresholds for
B to F were 5-6=green, 3-4=yellow, 1-2=red.
2022

Discussion
• Not any community reached functional coherence
between citizens and managers
• Key factors: Lack of institutional trust (expertise +
trustworthiness)
– Expertise: Dissatisfaction
– Distance bias from managers: low valuation of citizen
expertise
1. Gray et al,2012
2. Wachinger et al.,2013
3. Mitchell et al.,1997
4. Bronfman et al,2009
5. Silk,2004
6. Giddens,1993; Wakefield and Elliott, 2000
(Gronlund and Kahneman, 1974)
21

Conclusion
 Unique and innovative method for better
quantifying risk governance perceptions
 Repeatability, trilingual, community-based approach
 Point out to vulnerability factors / adaptive capacity
tracks
22

CHAPTER 3
Integrated Coastal Vulnerability
Diagnosis

Intention
• Develop a method that answers the key gaps
– Based on Füssel’s classification of vulnerability factors and 2 key
components of Impact + Adaptation
– GIS-based tool
• Erosion projection and built assets vulnerability quantification
• Mapping of landscape values
– Integration of perceptions
– Institutional context as a factor of vulnerability (internal +
external)
24

Precautionary approach:
DSAS 4.3 (USGS), 15m transects, 7-points smooth
• A1: no acceleration
• B1: +50m/100yrs
• B2: +100m/100yrs
Resnik 2003
Thieler et al.,2009;
Bernatchez et al.,2012a
Del Rio et al.,2013
Doody, 2004
Cooper and Pileky,2012
Projected coastline migration from mostinland historical limit, at 4 time intervals
(current, 2026, 2056, 2106) under 3 scenarios
26

Cell-scale visualisation tool for users
A
C
B D
27

28
A
C
B D

3
4
29

3
4
30
A
B

3
4
31
A
B

3
4
32
A
B

Kilkeel spatial vulnerability
33
A B C D

Institutional analysis
• Relationship between actors
• Main institutional processes regarding adaptation and
vulnerability management
Boyer-Villemaireet al.,2014a;Hemmati et al.,2002; O’Faircheallaigh,2010;Boyer et al.,2014; Boyer-Villemaireet al.,2015. 34

35
DoENI-
Planning
NI Rivers
Agency
DoENI -
NIEA
NI – DoE DoENI-
Env.protecti
on
DoENI-
Natural
Heritage
DoENI-
Climate
change
office
Newry&
Mourne
Council
Population
KDA - Kilkeel
Development
Association
CoastguardHarbour
Authorities
Mourne
National
Trust
UK-Planning
European
union
Urban
(roads)
coastline
protection
Coastal
forum?
Coast
« sentinels»
Operationnal
forces
Assessement
maps & tools
Flood
hazard map
Local
manageme
nt strategy?
Actions
NI –
Tourism? Road
agency?
Civil
security?
Coastal
manageme
nt strategy
Water
manageme
nt strategy
Mgt. strategy
DoE –
Designationas
(AONB,
RAMSAR,
Blue flag
beaches,
Scientific
interest)
Silent valley
dam level
manageme
nt
LU planning
maps
Public participation?
Climate
projections
– future
changes
Erosion
hazard map
Monitoring?
Retroaction?
Floodevent
record
EU – Flood
directive
Flood-
Planning
directive
(PPS 15)
Legal fmwk.
Coastallaw
project
Processes
Uncertain
Missing
ActorsActorsAutonomousgvt.LocalNationalInterntnl.
U.UlsterUKCIP

Internal biophysical
External biophysical
Internal socio-economical
Impacts
Adaptation&
Reislience
Effective Perceived
ImpactsA
&R
Synthesis for Kilkeel
No monitoring of erosion, no cliff
management strategy
Cranfield Bay and Point hotspot:
• Highly exposed location (-0.15 m/y)
• Sensitive TC
• High level of assets concerned
• Key hotspots of intangible landscape
values: esthetical, recreational and
economic
• Weak accomodation space
• Weak natural coastline
Other vulnerable population nucleus
Power station
Land: <1 [1-44] ha
Population: >100 [200-2500]
Buildings: 46 [86-1126] power station,
sewage station
Roads: 2.5 [5-32] km of road
Key touristic attraction, esthetical values
No public participation mechanism
Cultural tensions
Clear regional trend towards hazard
intensification
Diversity of perceived landscape values
Low positive experience of the coast
Blind confidence in all solutions
Major dissatisfaction, perceived low
preparedness
Disagreement on major actors, residents
and non-coastal residents roles
No dissemination strategy from local
authorities
Wetland protection status
Low adequacy of protection structures
No soft engineering
No erosion in local planning
Active Mourne Heritage Trust
Local environmental leader
Narrow inclusiveness and disciplinary
efforts, but leadership of DoENI
No monitoring program, no erosion maps
Absence of civil-security actors
Promising coastal forum
Effective flood hazard management
Expected coastal law
No dissemination strategy from central
authorities
Low perception of risk and vulnerability
from managers
Low perceived performance
Distance bias from managers (planning)
Low inclusiveness from managers
Effective Perceived
External socio-economical
Kilkeel’s vulnerability diagnosis: after 4 decades of silence 36

Discussion and conclusions
• Major contribution: development of a new coastal
vulnerability diagnosis method
– Multidisciplinary perspective broader than manyothers, sustainable
decision-oriented
– End-point assessment of vulnerability, mix of many schools of
vulnerability
• Limits
– Sampling size
– Erosion projection vs. hazardmapping
– Simplification and aggregation
• Key vulnerability factors
38

Conclusion
• In short, we produced a transdiciplinary Diagnosis
that is theoretically rooted, that distinghishes by its
scientific rigor and its anchor in the communities,
and by accessible representations for non-experts.
• Perspectives for innovation
– Erosion projections: climate reanalysis + bayesian statistics
– From vulnerability to adaptation and resilience building
research: evolution over time
– Optimize CB coastal management based on legal scenarios
39

Chemin de la Martinique, Cap-aux-Meules, IDM, 2009Séminaire OURANOS, Montréal, 10 avril 2013
ursulebv@gmail.com
Merci! Thanks! ¡Gracias!
40

Supplements related to jury
evaluations
41

Distribution of shoreline evolution,
by period by cell
WAR KIL DNMMIL
-0,400
-0,200
0,000
0,200
0,400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Pre-recentperiod
(1834/50-1975)
Mean EPR by sub-unit
ANNCRAGRNKLWROS
Recentperiod(1975-
2006)
-0,400
-0,200
0,000
0,200
0,400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Carlingford Lough Open Irish sea
W E1 2 3 4 5 6
WAR: Warrenpoint,ROS: Rostrevor, KLW: Killowen,MIL: Mill Bay,GRN: Greencastle, CRA: Cranfield,KIL:Kilkeel,ANN: Annalong,DNM: Dunmore
KILevolutionSTACK_byseg.xls
• The speed of shoreline evolutionis not the only anchor point in the proposed diagnosis
• The phenomena is present in the study site and assets are currently exposed, therefore
thre is a current vulnerability=> allows to identify current and potential hotspots

Coastal population
Site Buffer Rough
estimate of
households
Total
pop.
% of pop. Coastline Coastal
density
AVI First row ~60
4000
3%
~50 km
2.6
50 m ~80 4% 3.5
100 m ~200 11% 8.8
KIL First row ~50
6300
2%
~35 km
3.1
50 m ~60 2% 3.8
100 m ~200 7% 12.6
CHI First row ~20
18500
0%
~20 km
2.2
50 m ~200 2% 22.0
100 m ~1000 12% 110.0
43With 2.2 people / household

Why 3 study sites?
• Awareness survey first developed in QC
– Robustness elsewhere?
– Testing for similar coastline under other climate
– Interest is in methodological development
• Especially in institutional context
44

C. Fraser, 2010. Maria.
UBV.2010, Kilkeel Harbour.
UBV, 2010. Downtown Chipiona.
AVI
KIL
CHI
45

Transdisciplinary approach
• « La recherche transdisciplinaire (RT) développe des savoirs descriptifs,
normatifs et orientés vers la pratique pour aider à résoudre, atténuer et
prévenir des problèmes du monde vivant. La RT aborde les
problématiques d’une manière qui lui permet de (a) saisir la complexité
des problèmes, (b) prendre en compte les perceptions diverses des
problèmes, selon qu’elles émanent de la science ou du monde vivant, (c)
établir des liens entre savoirs abstraits et spécifiques à des cas concrets, et
(d) développer des savoirs et des pratiques qui promeuvent ce qui est
perçu comme étant le bien commun. »
Affiliation
47

Transdisciplinary approach
Affiliation
48

How to maintain the well being of communities
despite coastal landscapemodification?
• Complex problem
• Complex research project:
– Methodological development
– New contentsfor 3 local communities
– Transdisciplinary
– Fundamental and applied
– International and multilingual
– Mixed methods
• Vulnerability of coastal communities
51

INTRODUCTION
Coastal hazards, gulf of St. Lawrence,
artificiality
52

1 (Church et al.,2013; Horton et al.,2014; Jevrejeva et al.,2014; Slangen et al.,
2014; Han et al.,2015;...)
2 (Feser et al.2015; Gulev et al.,2013; Zwiers et al.,2013; Obeysekera and Park,
2013; Tebaldi et al.,2012)
3 (Anderson et al.,2015; Leatherman et al.,2000)
4 (Boucher-Brossard et al.,2015;Bernatchez and Dubois,2004;Del Rio et al.,
2013)
5 (Didier et al.,2015, Peng and Zou, 2011; Van der Meer et al.,2009)
6 (De Vries,2011)
7 (Bruun, 1962; Schwartz, 1967; Hands,1983, R.N. Dubois,1992;2001)
8 (Cooper and Pilkey,2004;Thieler et al.,2000, Davidson-Arnott,2005; Ranasinghe
and Stive, 2009)
9 (Benavente et al.,2006; Thieler et al.,2009;Brooks and Spencer, 2012; Del R’o et
al.,2013; (Cenci et al., 2015; Kabuth and Kroon, 2014)
10 (Young et al.,2014)
11 (Sunamara,1988;SCAPE - Walkden and Dickson,2008;Castedo et al.,2013)
12 (Le Cozannet et al.,2014)
Erosion Projections for Coastal Management
UBV,Îles-de-la-Madeleine,GrandeEntrée,06/2009
1. Projected Sea level rise
2. Rise in extreme events
3. Accelerationof migrationrates
•Major limits in modelling climate drivers : precautious management
4. Mass movements, glacial
and aeolianprocesses
5. Artificialisation
6. Xbeach and
artificialisation
7. 2-D Bruun rule
8. Numerous critics
9. Empirical modelling
10. Sedimentary balance
11. Physical models
12. Discrete and rare
historical coverages
Importance of predictivemodel
53

Impacts directs: augmentation des risques naturels
• Érosion: 60%
- événements >10m
• Submersion: 43%
- difficulté de
prédiction
- interaction:érosion
• Facteur humain:
- Structures de
protection inadéquates
- Absence d’unités
côtières de gestion
(permis, cadastre)
Impacts indirects: augmentation de la vulnérabilité
Comment évaluer la vulnérabilité au Québec?
69%
-0,30 m/an
63%
-0,63 m/an
65%
-0,73 m/an35%
-1,17 m/an
32%
-0,39 m/an
-0,48 m/an
Légende
Côte active en 2006
- %
- [m/an]
Côtes totales suivies: 3570km
Avignon (Carleton-Maria)
54

1. Augmentation des températures hivernales
Bernatchez et al., 2008
Côte-
Nord Redoux hivernaux
=> Augmentationdes cycles gel-degel
55

2. Diminution du couvert de glace
% couverture de glace sur l’estuaire et le golfe du Saint-Laurent
y = -0,0016x + 3,3837
y = -0,0036x + 7,336
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Source des données: Environnement Canada (Service Canadien des glaces), consulté en ligne 01/2012. 56

3. Hausse du niveau de la mer relatif
Koohzare et al., 2010
Niveau marin relatif (NMR) = Isostatisme(I) + Eustatisme(E)
Mouvement isostatiqueverticaldans l’Est
du Canada(mm/an)
Sept-Îles:
I = -1,3 mm/an (rebond)
E = +0,19 mm/an (subsidence)
NMR = -1,11 mm/an (émersion)
Projection 2100: E = [6-18] mm/an
Hausse NMR= + [4,7-16,7] mm/an
Belledune:
I = [2-3] mm/an (submersion)
E = +1,09 mm/an (subsidence)
NMR = +[3,09-4,09] mm/an (subsidence)
Projection 2100: E = [6-18] mm/an
Hausse NMR= + [19,09-22,09] mm/an
Bernatchez et al., 2008 57

Le Golfe du Saint-Laurent:lieu critique mondial
Anomalies d’augmentationdu niveau marin projeté
58

3. Hausse du niveau de la mer relatif
Allisonetal.,2009
Projectionsdu GIEC
ont sous-estimé la
hausse réelle
Pour 2100 :
hausse prévue
entre
60 et 180 cm
Nicholls et Cazenave, 2010
20ème siècle : 1 à 2 mm/an
Dernière décennie : 3 à 3,5 mm/an
Prévisions pour 2100 : 6 à 18 mm/an  soit 0,6 à 1,8 m 59

• Isostatic uplift – Eastern Canada
60

• Isostatic uplift – Eastern Canada
61

Période de retour 40 ans
(2006) 64

4. Variabilité des tempêtes
 hausse du nombre de tempêtes effectives
d’aprèsFriesingeretBernatchez,2008
Dates Direction du
vent
Côte Nord Baie des
Chaleurs
Îles-de-la-
Madeleine
Rive sud du St-
Laurent
5 décembre 1968 E/SO X X X
26 octobre 1980 E/S X X
7-8 décembre 1983 E X X X
10 décembre 1995 S/SO X X
28-29 octobre 2000 NE X X X X
18 novembre 2002 NE/N X X
15-16 octobre 2005 E/NE X X X X
6 décembre 2010 NE/SE X X
4 tempêtes sur 8 ayantprovoquéun impact simultané
sur plusieurs régions sont survenues depuis 2000
66

Symptôme: recul du trait de côte
Source: C. Fraser, Chairede rechercheen géoscience côtière.
Baie des Chaleurs2010/12/6-14
67

Géodiversité
côtière (Qc)
(A) Falaise d’argillite
sensitive aux
processus
hydrogéologiques et
d’érosion,
(B) Falaise de grès
sensible aux vagues et
processus d’érosion
(C) Terrasse de plage
s’érodant dû aux
vagues
(D) Terrasse de plage
artificielle
(E) Flèche littorale
vulnérable à la
submersion
(F) Falaise de sable et
d’argile sensible aux
vagues et glissements
de terrain
Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Sept-Îles
Baie des Chaleurs Baie des Chaleurs
Mingan
+Marais maritimes, dunes… Friesinger et Bernatchez, 201068

Diversité des
types de côtes
• Classification
– Énergie des vagues
– Capacité de
transport
– Exposition
• Côtes basses/à
falaises
• Courant de dérive
littorale
http://www.coastalwiki.org
Unité
côtière
homogène
CHU)
69

Sainte-Flavie,2010
Maria,2005
Érosion côtière :
Phénomène d’ajustement qui
entraîne un recul de la côte
par des processus marins,
terrestresou aériens.
Submersion :
Inondation de terrains côtiers
par le niveau de la mer ou par
le déferlement des vagues.
2 aléas côtiersprincipaux
= phénomène naturel ayant un impact sur son milieu
70

Maria, 13 septembre 2010
Solutions techniques traditionnelles
Généralement :
• Murs
• Enrochements
71

Sainte-Flavie : 50,1 % des ouvrages de protection ont été très endommagés ou
complètement endommagés par la tempête du 6 décembre 2010
Structures traditionnelles maladaptées
15 septembre 2010
09 décembre 2010
Effet de bout
Structures individuelles=  résistance globale de la côte
72

1931 1965 1996Sept-Îles
Structures traditionnelles maladaptées
Amaigrissement des plages au pied des structures
Adapter
• Altitude
• Calibration
érosion
submersion
-84%
largeur
Bernatchezetal.,2008
73

15 septembre 2010
09 décembre 2010
Trait de côte naturel: rôle de la végétation
ne protège pas
contre la submersion
(+niveau mer)
74

INTRODUCTION
Vulnerability assessments
75

Coastal vulnerability key approaches
1. Mapping of indicators
Gutierrez et al., 2009. US-CCSP report, App. 2
CVI Variables
a Geomorphology
b Rate of shoreline change
c Coastal slope
d RSL change
e Mean significant waveheight
f Mean tidal range
(Thieler& Hammer-Klose, 1999)
+ Données de recensement
(Boruff et al., 2005)
76

Coastal vulnerability key approaches
2. Community-based multicriteria (semi-quantitative)
• Importance of community-
scale for risk management
Cutter et al.,2008;UNISDR et al.,2010;Boyer-
Villemaireet al.(2014a)
77

Vulnerability to coastal hazards
How to maintain the quality of life of communities
despite coastal landscape modification?
"The characteristicsand circumstancesof a community, system or asset
that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard […] arising from
various physical,social, economic, and environmentalfactors"
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(UNISDR, 2009)
1. Evolving resilience, ecological losses
2. Landloss and builtassets
3. Perceptions (risk + governance)
4. Intangiblevalues
5. Adaptation/Maladaptation
6. Institutional context (process + capacity)
for adaptivemanagement of hazards
under multi-stakeholderapproach
From an social-ecological perspective (Anderies et al, 2004; Décamp, 2007)
1. Holling,1973,Adger et al.,2005b; Décamps, 2007; Wasson et al.,2013;Hansen and
Nestlerode, 2014; Arkema et al.,2013
2. Dawson et al.,2009; Sanchez-Arcilla etal.,2007; Bernatchez et al.,2015
3. Burton and Kates, 1964; Peters and Slovic,1996;Swim et al.,2011a;Domingez-
Arcos,et al,2011;Lemieux et al,2013;Warren, 2010.
4. Tunstall and Tapsell,2007;Brown and Reed, 2009
5. Bernatchez and Fraser,2012;Cooper and Pilkey,2012; Lemmen et al.,2008
6. Klein et al.,2001; Adger et al.,2005a;Armitage et al.,2009; Billé,2006;Engle, 2011;
Juhola,2014; Frazier et al.2010;Cutter et al.,2003; Eakin and Lemos, 2006; Moser
and Ekstrom, 2010…
(IPCC CZCS, 1992; UNISDR et al., 2010)
ADEME, 2013; MDDELCC, 2015)
• Balance between assessments of impacts and of adaptations
• Vulnerability: a framework prescribed by UNISDR, IPCC…
(McFadden et al., 2007)
78

Framework, objectives and motivations
Social motivations
– Importance of community-scale for coastalmanagement: Mutual
knowledge construction (applied & participative research)
– Quebec coastal geoscience research chair’s objectives
– Social anchored research: better define the adaptation tracks
– Visual representation
General hypothesis
A method to approach coastalerosion hazard using a multidisciplinary
vulnerability framework should allow to produce an appraisal of the
vulnerability in the coastal communities facing coastal erosion and flooding
under a climate change that is
just, operational and satisfactory.
79

Sampling
Survey (n=125)
1. Level of awareness
2. Governance
perception (chap. 2)
3. Interactive mapping
of intangible
landscape value
*Coastal vs. non-coastal
residents
Results presented:
• Concordanceof trends
with geoscience data
• Preference for solutions
• Multivariateanalysis
• Indicators
n=125
Avignon,
Canada
Kilkeel,
UK
Chipiona,
Spain
Total
Respondants Nb % Nb % Nb % Nb %
Total 57 100 36 100 32 100 125
Non-coastal
(NC) 12 21.1 18 50.0 25 78.1 55 44.0
Coastal
(CC) 45 79.0 18 50.0 7 21.9 70 56.0
Response
rate % % % % % % % %
Total 31.7 42.7 21.1 31.8
CC 16.0 31.2 25 21.4
NC 42.3 54.1 17.1 40.5
1. Gender Nb % Nb % Nb % Nb %
F 25 43.9 15 41.7 15 46.9 55 44.0
M 32 56.1 21 58.3 17 53.1 70 56.0
2. Age Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs
Median /
range
60-
64 25-89
55-
59 25-84
45-
49 18-84
55-
59 18-90
Mean / SD 61 15 56 14 48 14 57 15
NA nb. 2 3 1 6
Sample characteristics and profile descriptors
(complete description in appendix X)
1. and 2. modified from Freiseinger and Bernatchez, 2010
3. Brown, 2006; Brown and Reed, 2009.
80

Sampling
1. Same survey (n = 125)
• Environmental preoccupation*
• Attitude towards the
solutions/sustainability
• Attitude towards the governance
• Citizens’ satisfaction
• Preferences for actors*
2. Semi-structured interviews with
institutional actors*(managers)
• Quebec = 24
• Northern Ireland = 10
• Andalucia = 9
• Preferences for actors
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AND
NI
QC
n=43
0
5
10
15
20
25
AND
NI
QC
n=43
Interviews, by level
Interviews, by speciality
Nb.interviewsNb.interviews
1. Modified from (Friesingerand Bernatchez, 2010, OCM)
AVI
KIL
CHI
81

Supplementary contributions
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. Exploratory bibliometric analysis of coastal
vulnerability assessment(poster 2009)
(2011)
(2014)
(2015)
82

Organisation of scientific contributions
83
(OCM, 2014) (CHAPTER 2)
Functional coherence,
instituitonal trustand emotional
bias (sub. OCMUnder revision,
CHAPTER 3)
Theoretical framework
Coastal riskgovernance
perceptions
Coastal risk perceptions
Methods and Kilkeel results
(Manuscript, CHAPTER4)
Coastal vulnerability
diagnosis from a social-
ecological perspective
QUEBEC ADAPTATION TO CCAND
INSTITUTIONS
(Chapter in Lamariet al., 2015)
Institutional Analysis
Thematical contributions Integrative contributions
Subsetof Chapter 4
Coastal change detection,
projection, resilience and
maladaptation
COASTAL VULNERABILITY REVIEW:
Exploratory bibliometric analysis of
coastalvulnerability assessment
(poster 2009)
Sustainability, Natural hazardsand
community management:
Governanceand planning (Sub.)
Thesis introduction (50 p.)
Book review about Ecological
inequalities (Vertigo, 2011)
Risk governanceannd participation
(EHAZ, 2014)
Social justice and coastal zones
International frameworks and
public participation Results for Avignon
Results for Chipiona

Reformulate research hypothesis
• « Nous posons l’hypothèse qu’une évaluation
de l’aléa d’érosion côtière à l’aide d’un cadre
écosociosystémique de la vulnérabilité des
communautés fournit un portrait juste,
opérationnel et satisfaisant des principaux
facteurs de vulnérabilité dans les
communautés côtières faisant face aux aléas
d’érosion et de submersion dans un contexte
de changements climatiques. »
– Suggested by T. B.B.
84

Indicators relative to the hypothesis
• Just = scientific validity
– According to Hinkel 2013
• Based on inductive arguments
• Targeting vulnerability hotspots/groups
• Using predictive (projective) model of erosion
– Cross-scale and integrated (Füssel, 2007; Watts and Bohl, 1993)
• Operational = "quantifyable", repeatable,
usable by end-users, accessible
• Satisfying = According to feedback from the
communities
85

Background
1. Risk perceptions = vital role in decreasing vulnerability
2. Not well quantified at the level of collective decision-making
3. Coastal domain:
• Single type of coast and/or single hazard perceptions
• Coastal management strategies
1. Adger, 2006; Burton and Kates, 1964; Slovic,1987;Wachinger et al.,2013
2. Meur-Férec et al.,2008; Agardy and Alder, 2005
3.A) Bird and Dominey-Howes, 2008;Dessai and Sims,2010;Koutrakis et al.,2011. Wanget al.,2012;Llasatet al.,2007;Jessamy and Turner, 2003; B. Jones et al.,2011;
Koutrakis et al.,2011; Langford et al.,2000; Friesinger and Bernatchez, 2010.; Brilly and Polic,2005;Myatt et al.,2003; Roca and Villares,2012;
Functional awarenessof environmentalrisks
“a certain consciousness level that changes behaviour,other expressed as
awareness that has a functionalvalidity" (Orford and McFadden, 2002)
87

Risk knowledge and awareness
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
%positiveanswer
Observed presence of natural phenomena
AVI
KIL
CHI
n=125
P<0.05 P<0.05 P<0.05P<0.05
Test of equivalence of proportions (χ2) (Cornillon et al., 2010)
Factor: AREA
• Costal erosion: the most identified
• Most numerous phenomena in AVI,
the least in CHI (significant at 95% c.i.)
• P ≤ 0.05 : Significant differences
across areas
Area % Positive answers Nb. Phenom.>50%
AVI 69,6% 8/13
KIL 61,1% 7/11
CHI 51,0% 5/12
Total 60,6% -
Prop.test.AREA: χ^2 = 7,2605; p-value= 0.02651
AVI
KIL
CHI
88

-100,00%
-50,00%
0,00%
50,00%
100,00%
%answer
-100,00%
-50,00%
0,00%
50,00%
100,00%
%answer
-100,00%
-50,00%
0,00%
50,00%
100,00%
%answer
AVIKILCHI
Trends
n=125
Pearson’s Chi-squared test
(area, nb. answers for each kind of trends)
Decrease
Increase
More extremes
P ≤ 0.05 : significant differences across areas
Area Nb. Phenom.>50%
AVI 8
KIL 3
CHI 3
Total 60,6%
AVI
KIL
CHI
89

Concordance between citizens’
observations and geoscience
NA NA
NA NA
AVI
KIL
CHI
Strong concordance
Strong opposition
Indefinite
Partial concordance
AVI
KIL
CHI
90

Causes of coastal erosion
2 similar groups:
Top 5: storm waves, sea level, climate warming, diluvianrain,wind
Lowest 5: …
Overall,all ps are over 0.05, which indicateno significant differences between areas,
except for coastal ice and very close for wind.
However, for the relationship between coastal erosion and climate change, the level is
significantlyhigher in Avignon(p = 0.01); >50% in each area = concept well accepted…
NA NA
%positiveanswers
AVI
KIL
CHI
Relationship
betweencoastal
erosionand
climate change
n=125
P ≤ 0.05 : significantdifferences across areas
1
2
4
5
3
6
7
9 8
10
1
3 4 2
5
7
6
8
10
9
1
2 4 3
5
6
7
8
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
n Rank among
area
n=125
Χ2 of prop.test (areas,
nb. Positive answers)
91

Summer Fall Winter Spring
CHI
KIL
CHI
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
Summer Fall Winter Spring
%positiveanswers
Seasonality
Coastalerosion Coastalflooding
Uniform opinionabout winter being dominant
No significant
differences in
scores for winter,
summer, fall
p = 0.16 p = 0.15 p = 0.13 p = 0.03 p = 0.36 p = 0.02 p = 0.93 p = 0.98
Overall, C-ERO χ2 (Area, season): p = 0.09 and C-FLO χ2 (Area, season): p = 0.51
we then accept the independance hypothesis, it is to say that area does not influence the season
frequency of positive answers, exceptfor spring lower in Chipiona and Fall higher in Avignon.
Only significant
differences for
spring (Chi lower)
Only significant
differences for fall
(Higher in AVI)
P ≤ 0.05 : significantdifferences across areas
n=125
AVI
92

Preferences for solutions
•Underlined:Hardstructures
•Bold: Non-structural
measures
•Italic: Management and
preventive solutions
•Bold-italic: preventive and non-
structural
3 2 1
3
6
5
8
9
10
12
7
NA
14
10
13
4
2
1
3
6 6
7
8
5
11 9 11
13
9
14
1
3
7 7
2
11
10
4
6
4
15
7
11
14
13
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
AVI
KIL
CHI
%positiveanswers
Informationcampaign
Creationofcoastalcommittee
Mappingofhazard-proneareas
Plantvegetation
Rockywalls
Betterlawsandrules
Seawall
Angledlinearstructure(spike/groyn)
Behaviormodification
Beachnourishment
Movehouse
Dunenourishment
Dykes
Moverotherkindofbuildings
Noprotection–letnaturedo
•Most popular:informationand education
•Soft engineering less popularthan hard
•Rules and norms quite high
Area % Positive answers
AVI 30.2±18.1 %
KIL 66.5±14.7%
CHI 54,1±19,0%
Prop.test(AREA,%positive answers):
χ^2 = 27.27; p-value <0.01
n=124
AVI
KIL
CHI
n Rank among
area
93

0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
Total
n=106
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
Mean(abs(loadingofeachclassinfactor1))
A. Presence of environmental phenomena
B. Trends in environmental phenomena
C. Coastal erosion seasonal occurence
D. Coastal erosion causes
E. Prefered solutions
Area % variance explained by F1
AVI 33.2 %
KIL 25.2 %
CHI 26.0 %
ALL 32.1 %
AVI 23.4 %
KIL 20.7 %
CHI 21.2 %
ALL 19.1 %
AVI 37.1 %
KIL 46.5 %
CHI 38.8 %
ALL 38.5 %
AVI 14.2 %
KIL 22.1 %
CHI 22.9 %
ALL 15.8 %
AVI 23.9 %
KIL 24.1 %
CHI 33.1 %
ALL 29.6%
Descriptive
variables
Not
dependant
on area
AVI
KIL
CHI
Factors of perception: composition of MCA factor 1 by questionnaire sections
Factors
94

2. Perceptionofuncertainty
3. Intended
behavioural
change
AVI
-Low durationof stay
-Low commonality of attitudetowards
solutions
-Ruralretention/information for
newcomers
-Seek community consensus
-Increaseaccessto coastalleisure
-Informationon sustainableand
preventiveapproach
-Low positiveexperienceof thecoast
-Blind confidencein allsolutions
-Low concordancewith geosciencedata
-Low education level
-Unsustainablepreferences forsolutions
-Informationcampaign risk,sustainable
and preventiveapproach
-Strenghten accessto education
2. Perceptionofuncertainty
3. Intended
behavioural
change
KIL
1. Perceptionofdreadfulness
2. Perceptionof uncertainty
3. Intended
behavioural
change
CHI
Vulnerabilityfactors/ adaptation tracks
95

Discussion
• Results confirmed by multiple correspondance analysis
• Risk representation
• Basic knowledge agreement: causes of ERO, seasonality ERO + FLO
• Dreadfulness: AVI: greater ability to observe nb. phenomena, changes,
concordance with geoscience data
• Uncertainty: CHI: lowest environmental variability , cross-scale issues
(ERO-CC)
1. Informationand education: Similar geoscience trend in KIL and CHI, but
lower identificantion and concordance in CHI
• Illateracy rate 20% in Cadix prov. ;
• Greater missing geoscience data
• Misinformation related to media use of “heatwaves”
• But high concern of Spanish citizens about climate change
• cultural prejudice climate warming vs. change
• Ackowledgement by the community: favouring information campaign
ERO: erosion
FLO: coastalflooding
(FBBVA, 2007)
(Dominguez-Arcos et al. ,2011)
AVI > KIL > CHI
96

Discussion
2. Differential experience of the coast:
• More diverse activities in AVI; not only during sunny days like in CHI
• AVI’s 2010/12 and 2005 mentionned by all respondents (not in KIL, CHI)
• High level of new comers, health profesionnals and weatlthynew retired
• Intended behavioural change:
ERO: erosion
FLO: coastalflooding
CC: climate change
(Grothmann and Patt, 2005)
• Managementand preventivesolutions
in top 6
• BUT opposed attitudestowards hard
engineering
• Changed since 2005-2006 survey
• Lower agreement in AVI: good
understandingof uncertainty
• Overoptimisticin KIL about all
solutions:lack of guidelines
(Cooper and Pilkey, 2010)
(Friesinger and Bernatchez, 2010)
(MacInnis et al., 2013)
AVI ~ KIL > CHI
• Recognized lack of information
• Largely favouredhard engineering
• Need better geoscience data
• Not aware of local scientifc research
97

Discussion
• Importance du facteur AREA
• Explication biophysique
– Plus de phénomène à Avignon
• Explication socio-économique
– Plus de sensibilisation et d’événements au Québec
• Connaissances générales: expérience (durée dans la communauté,âge) et
niveau de scolarité
• Perception des phénomènes: niveau de scolarité (nécessité de sensibilisaition)
• Solutions: Éducationet aspect collectif/dialogue (taille du ménage)
• Tendances (taille du ménage et âge)
– Plus d’activités
– => Niveau de conscientisation fonctionnelle à AVI
• Indifférence à KILKEEL
• Faible niveau d’éducation et d’information à CHIPIONA
98

Background
• Scarcity of risk governance perceptions studies
– Even less in a vulnerability context
• 1. Individuals’ perceptions
– Barriers to adaptation: affective bias
– Institutional performance perception (satisfaction)
• 2. Managers perceptions
– Preoccupations about CC adaptation
• 3. Is collaborative management likely to be successful?
– Collective agreement: individuals + managers
1. Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Tversky and Kahneman, 1974
2. Lemieux et al.,2013;Mozumder et al.,2011
3. Langford et al.,2000 100

Intention
Factors submitted to individual processing Factor defined by inter-actors relationships
Risk perceptions
(Burton, 1964; Slovic, 1987;
Orford and McFadden, 2002;
Boyer-Villemaire, 2014)
Cognitive bias
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1974)
Iterative
feedback
Citizens-managers
functional coherence
• Multipleconnectionsbetween perceptions and AC/V
Intention:
• Factors of influence on citizens’ perceptionsacross areas
101

Risk governance perception framework
102
[name removed, sub.]
Accurate risk represenation and
desire to manage risks
and changes sustainably
•Dangersouness
•Uncertainty
•Intended behaviroural change
An engaged community willing to
participate constructively
•Attitude towards the issue
•Attitude towards of management
•Feeling of involvement
Functional coherence
A common understanding of governance
shared by citizens & managers
•Conceptiosn of inclusiveness
•Conception of leadership
•Conception of mutual roles
Riskappraisal
(Burton,1964
Slovic,1987)
Cognitivebias
(Tverskyand
Kahneman,1974)
Perception domain
Reality domain
Factors broader than community
•Exposure to natural hazards
•Socio-economical-cultural-institutional
contexts
•Climate discourse
•Etc.
Factors intra-community of
adaptive capacity
•Perceptions
•Resources (social, economical,
institutional capitals)
Community-scale adaptive capacity
Founding concepts Ability & sub-dimensions
Iterative
feedback
Factors submitted to individual processing Factor defined by inter-actors scale
Governance perception (this article)

n=121 Insatisfied
Pseudo-impartial
ImpartialPseudo-satisfied
Satisfied
8.9% 12.5%
16.1%
57.1%
5.4%
2.9%
11.8%
26.5%
58.8%
3.2%
19.4%
32.3%
32.3%
12.9%
Satisfaction about current
management of cosatal
land-use and risks
• Dominance of
dissatisfied: AVI and KIL
• Higher satisfaction in
CHI
– More genuinely satisfied
– Less genuine dissatisfied
AVI
KIL
CHI
103

Perception of adaptation capacity
Currentlevelof
preparadness
Importanceof
futurepreparadness
CHI
01
6
6
01
2 66
AVI
0
1
2
66
0
1
2
3
KIL
0
12
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
66
0: Null;
1: Low
2: High
3: Very high
66: Don’t know
n=125
χ2
(Area, nb. anwers)
Level of
preparedness
χ2 = 34,58
p < 0.01
Importance of
preparadness
χ2 = 13.94 p
= 0.08
8.93%
5.36%
28.6%
57,4%
5.88%2.94%
91.2%
3.45%
6.90%
55.2%
34.5%
14.3%
3.57%
10.7%
67.9%
3.57%
35.3%
14.7%
8.82%
44.1%
31.6%
1.75%
10.5%
56.1%
To what level of preparadness for managing this change do
you think that your community is?
How important for your community is such preparation?
104

Improvements
• Lexicometrical analysis of
improvements to coastal hazard
management suggested
• Same vocabulary in AVI and KIL:
• Planification, building allowance,
role of local government
• Differing domain in CHI:
• Raising awareness, information ,
wealth, money
(Size of typo proportional to occurrences)
Generated by wordle.net
AVI
KIL
CHI
105

Environmental preoccupations
Proportion of respondents who
mentioned coastal hazards theme
among their top-3 preoccupations
76,8%
44,4%
25,9%
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
AVI KIL CHI
n=120
Economical
Social
Equivalence of proportions
(Prop.test χ2)(areas, nb. Positive
answers): χ2 = 9.1; p=0.01
AVI KIL CHI
Mean perceived importance of the
coastal zone for the economical and
social themes
3,00
2,00
1,00
0,00
n=124
The scale ranged between 0
(min.) and 3 (max.). Error bars
= 1 SD.
106

Governance percpetions: Synthesis
Similarities Site(s)a Differences Site(s)a
 Dominance of higher governmental
levels (autonomous and national) as
major actors
 Coastal residents scored as major
actors everywhere except among
citizens in CHI
 Local gvt. scored as major actor
everywhere except among managers
in CHI
 Consultative roles to scientific
community and local environmental
organizations
 No actors group was considered
resource provider/disinterred actor
 Same marginal actors: citizens from
outside the community and
international organizations
 Similarly for citizens and managers,
European union as secondary actor in
KIL and CHI, but marginal in AVI
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
 Diverging opinions about the national
gvt. (widest range of scores)
 Responsibility scores of local gvt.
higher among citizens than managers
 No pattern for commercial and
industrial interests
 Lower nb. of secondary actors among
managers, less inclusivity
 Despite being major actors, the
decisional scores of coastal residents
were higher among citizens than
managers
 Lower role to non-coastal residents in
CHI, similarly for citizens and
managers
 Local gvt. as consultative among
managers in CHI
 Diverging groups of participation for
sub-regional-levels except in CHI
 Similarly for citizens and managers,
higher decisional scores for non-
coastal residents in AVI only
All
All
All
All
A,K
C
C
C
A
aSites: A: Avignon, Canada; K: Kilkeel, UK; C: Chipiona, Spain.
Similaritiesand differences between citizens and managers perceptionof
decisionaland responsibilityroles, by sites
107

Environmental preoccupations
Kilkeel Chipiona Avignon
Citation 1 "The sea is taking away the bank,
[which brings] less field surface"
(KIL023)
"There is not any [environmental
problem], it is conserved well
enough, I don’tsee any"
(CHI09)
"We don’tlike to see the coast
retreating; we Wonder what is
going to happen" (AVI045)
Citation 2 "There is a significant problem
about coastal erosion […] lack of
recognized strategy to deal with
that problem" (KIL027)
“An NGO is watching and
paying attention to the
environmental themes, the clubo
CANS]” (CHI027)
"An event like the one in 2010, it
makes you reflect a lot; the
warming of the planet, it is not us
until [the nature] takes its right
back; I understood [the
message] : I am going, I am
moving [soonmy house]"
(AVI051)
Attitude Rationalproblem
acknowledgement
"Disinvolvement", denial or
lack of observation
Emotionalexperience of the
problem
Representativecitationsamong environmentalpreoccupations
about coastal hazards, conservation,management,
0) Leiserowitz, 2006
1) Reser and Swim, 2011; Leiserowitz 2006;
1A) Giddens, 1993; Wakefield and Elliot,2000 108

Environmental preoccupation
109
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Self-centered Emotional Factual Causal (env.) Community
management
Attitude in environmentalpreoccupation answers
Community management
CHI: it is a matter taken care of by localorganisations
Vs.
AVI: It affects the management/dynamics of our community
%ofanswers
Topics

Citizens’ perception of risk governance
Level of preoccupation
•Proportionof respondents who mentioned coastal
hazards theme among their top-3 preoccupations
•Cultural attitude towards the problem
3
2
2
3
1
1
6
6
(In)Satisfaction
•Majority being insatisfied
•Perceived level of preparadness = null
1
3
1
1
3
2
5
6
Valuation of management solutions
•Nb. Management solutions among top-6 2 3 2 7
Feeling of involvement
•High coastal residents decisional scores (major class)
•High non-coastal decisional scores (secondaryclass)
•Residents close to leader: Decision scores (leader -
higher residents group) > 0.75
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
9
7
7
Towardsthe
management
Towards
thetopic
Feelingof
control
TOTAL (/24) 20 19 14
1 Colors have been attributed only for the sake of illustrating the differences across areas; thresholds for A were 3=green, 2=yellow, 1=red;
thresholds for B & D were 7-9=green, 4-6=yellow, 1-3=red; thresholds for C were 9-12=green, 5-8=yellow, 1-4=red.
110

in coastal management
Actors D. R.
1) Coastal residents
2) Non-coastal residents
3) Citizens outside community
4) Local gvt.: Community council
5) Sub-regional gvt.: County
6) Provincial/regionalgvt.
7) National gvt.: UK
8) Continental comm.: EuropeanUnion
9) International comm. (name it)
10) Scientific comm. (University, Research
institute)
11) Commercialinterest
12) Industrial interest
13) Local organizations(name them)
What is a good
management for
citizens vs. managers?
DECISION
1. Should be involed
in identifying the
solutions?
Yes (1-2-3-
4)/No
RESPONSIBILITY
2. Should be
responsibile for
implementation
($,£,€)?
Yes (1-2-3-
4)/No
Others?
111

in coastal management
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00Meanrank(0-4)
Meanrank (0-4)
RESPONSIBILITY
DECISION
II.
III. V.
I.IV.
112

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
Decision vs. Responsability
Actor groups
1 Coastal residents
2 Non-coastal residents
3 Citizens from outside the
community
4 Local gvt.
5 Sub-regional gvt.
6 Autonomous territory gvt.
7 National gvt.
8 Continental community
9 International community
10 Scientific community
11 Commercial interest
12 Industrial interest
13 Local organizations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
1112
13
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
II- Highly decisional
and responsible roles
III- Secondary role
V- Marginal role
IV- Highly consultative role,
not responsibility
I- High responsibility role,
not decisional
Participationclass
Citizens
III
V IV
III
Managers
Decision meanranking (0-4)
AVI KIL CHI
n=124 citizens, n=43 managers
113

1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9 10
1112
13
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
Actor groups
1 Coastal residents
community
4 Local gvt.
5 Sub-regional gvt.
7 National gvt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
1112
130,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
III- Secondary role
V- Marginal role
not responsibility
not decisional
Participationclass
Citizens
III
V IV
III
Managers
AVI KIL CHI
114

1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9 10
1112
13
1
23
4
5
6
7
89 101112
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
Actor groups
1 Coastal residents
community
4 Local gvt.
5 Sub-regional gvt.
7 National gvt.
1
23
4
5
6
7
89
101112
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
1112
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
1112
130,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
III- Secondary role
V- Marginal role
not responsibility
not decisional
Participationclass
Citizens
III
V IV
III
Managers
AVI KIL CHI
115

CC res.
NC res.
Citiz.
Local g.
Sub-r.
Prov.
Nat.
Contin.
Internl.
Scient.
Commer.
Indus.
Local o.
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
-1,00 1,00 3,00 5,00
Responsibilityscores
Decision scores
KIL KIL
CC res.
NC res.Citiz.
Local g.
Sub-r.
Prov.Nat.
Contin.Internl.
Scient.Commer.
Indus.
Local o.
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
-1,00 1,00 3,00 5,00
Decision scores
AVI
AVI
CC res.NC res.
Citiz.
Local g.
Sub-r.
Prov.
Nat.
Contin.
Internl.
Scient.
Commer.Indus.
Local o.0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
-1,00 1,00 3,00 5,00
Decision scores
CHI
Decision vs. Responsibility
Empty
Exclusion of residents
CITIZENS
• Similaritiesin AVI and KIL:
• Legitimacy of CC (I) and NC (II)
• Great hopes for gvts., consulting scientists and local NGOs
• Differences about EU (continental)and private sector
• CHI: Lower scores, exclusion of residents in 1st group
116

CC
NCCitiz.
Local g.
sub-r.g.
Prov. g.
Nat. g.
Conti.
Intern.
Sci.
Comm.
Indust.
Local.org.
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
0,00 2,00 4,00
Responsibilityscore
Decision score
CC
NC
Citiz.
Local g.
Sub-r.g.
Prov. G.
Nat.g.
Contin.c.
Int. c.
Sci.c.
Comm.
Indust.
Local org.
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
0,00 2,00 4,00
Responsibilityscore
Decision score
CC
NC
Citiz.
Local g.
Sub-r.g.
Prov. G.
Nat.g.
Contin.c.
Int. c.
Sci.c.
Comm.
Indust.
Local org.
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
0,00 2,00 4,00
Responsibilityscore
Decision score
Decision vs. Responsibility
• Lower scores than residents (except gvt in CHI)
• Much fewer actors in Upper circle
• Greatest contributionof Prov. Gvt.
• Same lower circle
AVI KIL CHI
MANAGERS
117

Risk governance perceptions
Vulnerabilityfactors / adaptation tracksCitizens’ attitude
1. Preoccupation
2. Attitude towards
management
3. Feelingofcontrol
AVI
- Dissatisfaction towardstheinstitutions
- Intermediatefavourfor managementsolutions
1. Preoccupation
2. Attitude towards
management
3. Feelingofcontrol
KIL
-Major dissatisfaction,perceived low preparedness
1. Preoccupation
2. Attitude towards
management
3. Feelingofcontrol
CHI
-Lack of interestforthetopic
-Intermediatefavourfor managementsolutions
Citizens-managers
118

Risk governance perceptions
- Dissatisfaction towardstheinstitutions
- Intermediatefavourfor managementsolutions
-Major dissatisfaction,perceived low preparedness
-Lack of interestforthetopic
-Intermediatefavourfor managementsolutions
1. Preoccupation
2. Attitude towards
management
3. Feelingofcontrol
AVI
1. Inclusiveness
2. Leadership
3. Mutualroles
1. Preoccupation
2. Attitude towards
management
3. Feelingofcontrol
KIL
1. Inclusiveness
2. Leadership
3. Mutualroles
1. Preoccupation
2. Attitude towards
management
3. Feelingofcontrol
CHI
1. Inclusiveness
2. Leadership
3. Mutualroles
Vulnerabilityfactors/ adaptation tracksCitizens’ attitude Citizens-managers
- Clarification and informationabout coastalregulation
and institutions
- Strengthen community-based decision-making
- Inclusion of citizensin decision andresponsibility
- Strong discordanceaboutgvts.’roles
-Increaseaccessto coastalleisure
-Informationon sustainableand preventiveapproach
-Clarification and informationabout coastalregulation
and institutions+develop CBdecision-making
- Disagreementon majoractors,residentsandnon-
coastalresidentsroles
-Informationcampaign risk,sustainableand preventive
approach
-Clarification and informationabout coastalregulation
and institutions+develop CBdecision-making
-Low feeling of involvement:secondaryactors and
importanceof residents
-Low perceivedinclusivenessin decisions,
-Misunderstanding aboutleadership andlocalgvt.role
119

Typology of factors: mixed methods
Fussel (2007);McFadden et al,2007; Turner 2003; Watts and Bohle, 1993; Eakin an dLuesrs, 2006; Juhola,2014;Sweet et al,2014; Van Asch et al.,2014
Internal biophysical
External biophysical
Semi-quantitative (historic,recent & future)
•Regional trends: hydro-climatic seaweather,
sea-level
Qualitative
•External anthropic phenomena (dredging,
drainage, dams)
Spatial:
•Hazard count by coastalcell
•Exposition to hazards by coastalcell
•Coastline migration rate (historical, actual,
projected)
•Topography and flooding areas
•Potential impacts on ecosystemic services
•Accommodation space
Qualitative:
•Historical events (erosion, flooding)
Internal socio-economical
Spatial: Potential impacts according to diverse
time projections:
•Exposed population
•Exposed infrastructures (roads, buildings)
Qualitative:
•Sensititivy of the main economic motors
•Sensitivity of future developments
Qualitative:
•Regulation and laws
•Actors analsis (diversity, connectivity)
•Institutional processes analysis (completeness,
functionning, coherence with needs)
Impacts
Adaptation&
Reislience
Spatial:
•Natural resilience of the coast based on %
natural coastline
•Matching landward accomodation space and
expected sea level rise for low coasts
Spatial:
•Mapping of structures of protection, their state
and adequacy to coast type
•Other measures to decrease exposure
Qualitative:
•Presence of a local coastal committee
•Local urban planning rules to decrease of
exposure and risk management plans
Spatial
•Intangibles landscape values (valuing according
to interactive cartography)
Semi-quantitative
•Functional awareness of natural hazards
(according to survey):
•Perception of dreadfulness
•Perception of uncertainty
•Behavioral change
Semi-quantitative
•Citizen perception of governance (survey
•Managers-citizens functional cohesion for
governance
Qualitative:
•Presence of dissemination strategies targetting
functional awareness of natural hazards and
community’s perception of governance
Effective Perceived
•Qualitative:
•Governmental adaptation measures
•NGOs adaptation measures
•Qualitative:
•Presence of information strategies targetting
citizen-managers functional coherence
ImpactsA
&R
Effective Perceived
External socio-economical
Qualitative:
•Managers’ perception of natural hazards and
governance
121

Environmental
phenomena
Best
resolution PAST FUTURE ∆ RISK
Coastal erosion Community Increase Increase (rate)
Coastal flooding
Qc & Atlantic
Canada
Increase
Increase (frequency,
maybe height)
Storm waves (surges) Qc & Atl. Can. Increase Increase (frequency)
Strong/diluvian rainstorms BDC Increase
Increase
(destructiveness)
River erosion NA Indefinite Increase
River flooding Maritime Quebec Decrease Increase
Winter temperature changes BDC Increase Increase
Winter precipitation changes Maritime Quebec Less snow Increase or stable
Sea ice cover Maritime Quebec Decrease Decrease
Ice dams/jams Qc & Atl. Can. Increase Increase
Summer temperature
changes
Qc & Atl. Can. Increase Increase
Summer precipitation
changes
Qc & Atl. Can.
Increase Increase or stable
Climate warming Maritime Quebec Increase Increase
Coastal landslides Maritime Quebec Increase Increase
Coastal rockfalls NA Indefinite NA
Beach width changes Community Decrease NA
Sea level changes BDC Increase Increase
Risk change classes
LESSER
TO MONITOR:
intermediate or
uncertain
HIGHER
Trend classes
Increase
Decrase
Both/more extremes
Indefinite/unclear
Variation in trends for AVI
=>Majority of increase in risk
123

124
Environmental phenomena PAST FUTURE ∆ RISK
Coastalerosion Indefinite Increase Higher
Coastalflooding Increase Increase Higher
Storm waves (surges) Increase Increase Higher
Strong/diluvian rainstorms Increase or stable Increase Higher
River erosion Same as precipitations Increase Higher
River flooding Increase Increase Higher
Winter temperature changes Increase Increase Higher
Winter precipitation changes Increase or stable Increase or stable Intermediate or uncertain
Summer temperature changes Increase Increase Higher
Summer precipitation changes Increase Increase or stable Intermediate or uncertain
Climate warming Increase Increase or stable Intermediate or uncertain
Coastallandslides Indefinite Increase Higher
Coastalrockfalls Indefinite Increase Higher
Beach width changes Decrease Decrease Higher
Sea level changes Increase or stable Increase Higher
Sea surface temperature Increase Increase Higher
LEGEND LEGEND
Trend classes Risk change classes
Increase Lesser
Decrase Intermediate or uncertain
Both/more extremes Higher
Indefinite

Coastal classification
126
Bernatchez, P., Friesinger, S., unpublished. Caractérisation côtière et effets de l’artificialité sur les plages des secteurs de Pointe-aux-Loups et de
la baie de Plaisance, Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Universite du Quebec a Rimouski, 88.
Morissette, A., 2007. Évolution côtiere haute résolution de la région de Longue-Rive-Forestville, Côte-Nord de l'estuaire maritime du Saint-
Laurent. Universite du Quebec a Rimouski, Rimouski, p. 286.

Case types of future coastline position estimate under optimistic and
pessimistic apprehended changes of regional coastal sedimentary balance
129

Event buffer and scenarios
Type of coast Event buffer*
Low soft coast (beach/raised beach/microcliff,stream exit, dune) 2 m
Salt marsh 1 m
Low and medium soft cliff 1 m
High and very high cliff 2 m
Artificial (harbour) 1 m
Note: “+” refers to more inland coastline position (additional erosion)130

Illustration of the security-margin based method for
estimating the coastline position
Projected interval Corresponding year Scenario A1:
No acceleration
Scenario B1:
+50m/100yrs
Scenario B2:
+100m/100yrs
0 yrs 2006 0 m 0 m 0 m
20 yrs 2026 0 m +5 m +10 m
50 yrs 2056 0 m +10 m +50 m
100 yrs 2106 0 m +50 m +100 m
Note: “+” refers to more inland coastline position (additional erosion)131

Coastal change in Kilkeel
2% 1%
3%
16%
1%
38%
3%
36%
0%
eroding
recently and overall
eroding
recently stopped eroding;
overall eroding
recently started eroding
recently stopped eroding
stability
recently stopped
accumulating
recently started
accumulating
accumulating (0%)
N transects = 2216; N subsegments = 43
132

Cumulative assets exposed following
A1, B1 and B2 scenarios
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
2000 2050 2100 2150
A. Land exposed (m2)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2000 2050 2100 2150
C. Nb. buildings
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2050 2100 2150
D. Road length (km)
Yrs
B2 (rapid
acceleration)
B1 (acceleration)
A1 (linear)
Legend
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2000 2050 2100 2150
B. Population exposed (nb.)
Yrs
44 ha
<1 ha
1126
2481
46
85
194
31,98
4,922,35
117
133

Ho: Only for segments with current artificial structure or measure
Theoretical adequacy (T/F)
(based on theoretical judgement:
See table of referenceby type of
coast)
Current adequacy
to coastal erosion
Future adequacy
to coastal erosion
Empiricaladequacy (T/F)
(observed/measured)
To coastal erosion: (by sea OR slope/subarieal processes)
[type of coast] AND
[type of structure/measure]2
[observed/measured recentstateof
the shoreline& coastline4
] OR
[other proofs]
Idemthan above, with respectto
futuretrends of hazards
&
= &
&= Idem than above
To submersion (sea flooding): (only low lying coasts, with respect to height not resistance)
Current adequacy
to submersion
Future adequacy
To submersion
[type of coast] AND
[type of structure/measure]2
[observed/measured recentstateof
the shoreline& coastline4] OR
[other proofs]
Idemthan above, with respectto
futuretrends of hazards
= &
&= Idem than above
Adequacy
to hazard =
T = (T, T) F = (F, T) F = (T, F) F = (F, F)
Adequacy is true if and only true if theoretical AND empirical adequacy are both true
Determinationof adequacy of coastal defense structure or measure
=> Limit (submersion): no respect for resistance, only height, may lead to under-estimation of adequacy
A(e,c)
A(e,f)
A(s,c)
A(s,f)

EXAMPLE: Killowen point, Kilkeel, Northern Ireland
- Gravel beach terrace
- With rocky and concrete seawall
- Obviously< 2m a.s.l.
- No sign of erosion or submersion
- Stable trend of evolutionin recent decades
- Testimonies of occasional flooding (during survey)

Intangible landscape values
137

Intangible landscape values
Modified from Brown and Reed, 2009
Mapping of surficial
density
Raw data: Participative cartography (modified from Brown and Reed, 2009) during field survey during summer 2010
Methods: Kernel’s density calculated based on 100 m pixel resolution at a radius of 1 km, average nb. points/km2 over each
coastal cells counted within current coastal exposition conditions (2006: 0-5m)
Symbology: 5-classes natural breaks
Software: ArcGIS 10: Spatial statistics toolbox and Xtool Pro
Example:Esthetical value,between Greencastle et Kilkeel
mean dot density km2 / participants
138

Caractérisationcôtière (exemple)
139

Non-spatial adaptation factors
• Community-based land-use scheme?
• Influence of type of coast on built assets?
• Future development by type of coast?
• Others?
Community-based land-use
scheme?
Built assets or protection by
type of coast
Future development by type
of coast
Others
No:
- Land-use schemes designed
by planning office (DOENI)
in Craigavon for Kilkeel;
- does not include erosion-
trend-based cliff security
margins
- include flood maps
produced by Rivers Agency.
High coasts: none (left to
owners)
Low coasts: none (left to
owners)
High coasts: minimal margins
are mapped by DOENI in
land-use schemes, but not
based on erosion trends
Low coasts: beaches: Humid
areas: Sites with
environmental protection do
not allow building, e.g.
Intertidal area of Mill bay
(Carlingford lough) is part of
RAMSAR sites
Erosion: no information is
gathered or disseminated in
Northern Ireland; cliff edge
margins are typically 5-10m
Flooding: Flood maps are
compulsory (EU flood
directive) and the basis for
allocation of building permits
Management style: State is
responsible for protection
Meur-Férec et al., 2008
Rowe-Frewer, 2005140

Institutional analysis
Intention
Strategy
Assess problems
Assess options
Decision
Actions
Participation
Monitoring
Learning
• Relationship between actors
• Main institutional processes regarding vulnerability
management
– Hazardmanagement
– Climate change adaptation
• "Adaptive decision-making wheel"
Boyer-Villemaireet al.,2014a;Hemmati et al.,2002; O’Faircheallaigh,2010;Boyer et al.,2014; Boyer-Villemaireet al.,2015. 141

x
142
Actors
Processes
Uncertain
Missing
Common gaps
Efficiency of institutional processesto manage naturalrisks
and climate change impacts
Water
management Managing
assets at risk
EU – Flood
directive
Manage civil
security
Manage
extreme
events Coastal
strategy
Informing the
public about
natural hazards
1
During
Reconstruc-
tion strategy
Tools Tasks
Prevention
Before
After
Preparedness
Plan of civil
security
?
Urban
(roads)
coastline
protection
?
Manage in
concertation
with the
public
Assess
solutions inan
integrated
way
Projection
effects on
comm.
activities
Protect
houses& at
riisk of
erosion
Actualize
hazard maps
frequently
Adaptation to
the loss of
public access
Integrate
ersosion
hazard in LU
planning
Emergency
access
Indivudual
insurance
Climate
projections –
future
changes
Changes
monitoring-
data
Local
management
strategy
Planning
future
development
Manage
gradual
changes
Coastallaw? Coastal
public access
Project future
storms, SL,
erosion
rates(local)
2
3
Floodhazard
map
Erosion
hazard map
Urban
(roads)
coastline
protection
Managing
assets at risk
of flooding
Coastal flooding
Coastal erosion
Silent valley
dam
manageement
LU planning
maps
Cliff
management
Coast
« sentinels»
Coastallaw?

4-VULNERABILITY DIAGNOSIS
Results for Avignon

Localisation générale
Carleton.pdf
Maria.pdf 144

Enjeux socio-économiques dans Avignon
• Basé sur le taux d’érosion probable + imminence régionale
– 1 bâtimentprincipal/km de côte => 4 bâtimentsprincipaux/kmde côte
– 150 000$ / habitations=> 4,05M$ => 16,05M$ en 2100
• + ~8km de route 132 (à 1M$/km)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2100
Bâtiments principaux
Autres infra
Projections d’infrastructures exposées à l’aléa d’érosion (taux + imminence)
dans les cellules Baie tracadigache et baie Cascapédia à Carleton-sur-Mer et Maria
27 bâtimentsprincipaux
exposés actuellement
107 bâtimentsprincipaux
exposés en 2100
Boyer-Villemaireet al., in prep.145

ExterneInterne
Biophysique
•Changements rapides et irréversibles
•Grande variabilité spatiale (géodiversité)
•Certitude mais difficulté de prévision locale
•Tendances régionales claires: augmentation
des aléas
•Point chaud mondial
•Dépendance spatiale
•Amont-aval
•Continuum terre-mer
Vulnérabilité intégrée de Carleton et Maria
Socio-économique
Absence ou mésadaptation
•Communication du risque
•Cadre légal et responsabilité
•Processus institutionnels et gestion du bâti
•Attentisme imposé
•Accompagnement des populations et filet
social
•Bonne conscientisation fonctionnelle et
sentiment d’inclusion
•Biais émotif dans la perception de la
gouvernance (sécurité, satisfaction)
•Impacts psycho-sociaux
•Infrastructures vitales à risque à court terme
•Mesures locales d’urbanisme
146

Institutional strategic adaptation tracks for KIL
• Reinforce rules and norms
• Interactions
– The most interactions:DoE,planning?remains sectoral => potentialofcoastal forum;
– The least interaction: community-basedactors
• Diversify actors implied:Increase connexionswith risk management, local actors
and public participation
– Low connections with some actors with specific assets at risk (civil security, roads,tourism)
– Low connections with community-based organizations
– UoUlster
• Diversify actions
– Other necessities than only urban promenades
• Complete EU directives and PPS with coastal erosion
– Actualize hazardmap => take into account overwash and interaction with dam mgt.
– Necessity to integrate coastalerosion in planning
• Create retroaction loops
– Followingchanges => coastal evolution
– Necessity to get a structure that can assess situtaiton from a multidisciplinary point of view
147

Limits and implications
• Amount of information: separate into 2 articles
– Integrated coastalvulnerability diagnosis:
• Part 1: methods for identifying local adaptation tracks for
coastal communities
• Part 2: the case of Kilkeel, Northern Ireland
– The idea is to create a portfolio of adaptations tracks
– Leaving the community to prioritize which tracks
(community-basedaccompaniement)
• Provides spatial-based and regional trends knowledge
(factual)
• Potential improvements in perceptions and institutional
context
• Need to build participation in order for the community to
feel ownership about the solutions
148

Synthèse des échelles d’adaptation
Échelles d’adaptation Actions/Axes
Biophysique Acquisition de connaissances en continu
Prévoir les impacts directs par UCH
Qui est responsable?
Travailler avec la résilience naturelle
Éviter la maladaptation
Individuel Population à très haut risque
Population vulnérable à haut risque
Résidents non-côtiers
Sensibilisation générale dans l’Est du Qc
Communauté-MRC Prévoir les impacts indirects
Effet domino et autres effets
Gestion intégrée… concertation, participation
Province Identifier les communautés vulnérables
Clarifier le cadrelégal, adaptatif
Ressources pour la gestion intégrée des ZC – PACC
Filet social et assurabilité
Fédéral Clarifier le cadrelégal, adaptatif
Alertes de surcotes
Responsabilité envers les populations côtières
Inter-échelle Organede collaboration interministérielle
Académique Modélisation de la submersion, Prévision del’érosion, Méthodede suivi,
évaluation de la vulnérabilité/impacts, adaptation et concertation
150

Perspective for coastal management
151

Quand agir?
• Information à jour en continu
• Zonage: Empêcher de nouvelles
constructions
• Se protéger et immuniser les
bâtiments/routes principales
• Déménager certains quartiers?
• Reconstruire à chaque année: choix
individuel ($)
• Indemniser a posteriori
+fréquemment: choix collectif
• Baisse ou rupture de qualitéde vie
(individuelle,communautaire)
• Pertes foncières: laisser les
assurances décider?
• Risquer des vies?
• Coûts de l’adaptation • Coûts du statu quo
Crowley et al., 2012 (ÉNAP)
<
Immédiats +, moyen terme - Immédiats -, moyen terme +++
Retombées
•Prévention
•Sécurité
•Qualité de vie
•Occupation+ durabledu territoire
Retombées
• - dépenses dans 1 mandat de 4 ans
•Leg aux générationsfutures?
•Équitédans la distributiondes
impacts des CC?
Immédiats +, moyen terme +++ Immédiats ?, moyen terme - - 152

A variable role for populations
Risk-based: a variable role for local level
•Relationship with uncertainty
Approach
Centralized or
normative
approach
Some power
sharing
Active power
sharing
Maximum
public input
Intention
Manage
coastal
security risk
Manage
coastal
impacts of
climate
change on
community
(people and
resources)
Outcome ParticipationContext
After Resnik 2003 in Renn 2008; Renn, 2008
Certainty Outcome is
known
Government &
corporations
only
Decision
under risk
Each option:
probability of
happening
Major
stakeholder
participation
Decision
under
ignorance
Probabilities
are unknown
Greater
participation of
unorganized
public voices
Decision
under
ambiguity
•In interpretation
of risk assessment
More
acceptability
needed,
maximum
participation
•In desirable
approach
154

UBV_soutenance_v5

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to UBV_soutenance_v5

Similar to UBV_soutenance_v5 (20)

UBV_soutenance_v5