Capturing coastal morphological change

within regional integrated assessment: an

outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach

S. Hanson*, R.J. Nicholls*, P. Balson**, I. Brown^, J.R. French~,

T. Spencer<, W.J. Sutherland>

Southampton University*; British Geological Society**;

The Macaulay Institute^; University College London~;
Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Cambridge University<;
Department of Zoology, Cambridge University>

October 2007

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 113

 Capturing coastal morphological change within regional integrated

assessment: an outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach

Lead Author: Hanson, S1;

Contributing Authors: Nicholls, R J1; Balson, P2; Brown, I3; French, J R4;

Spencer, T5;Sutherland, W. J. 6

1
School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, Highfield Campus, Southampton University,
Southampton, SO17 1BJ ,UK .
2
British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK
3
The Macaulay Institute (ILUS Group) Craigiebuckler Aberdeen, UK
4
Coastal and Estuarine Research Unit, University College London, UK
5
Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK6 Department of Zoology,
Cambridge University, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

Tyndall Working Paper No. 113 October 2007

Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are
commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer
review.
The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the
author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre.

LRH: Hanson et al.

Short running title: Coastal morphological change using an outcome-driven fuzzy
logic approach

-1-
 ABSTRACT

Climate change will have pervasive effects on the world’s coasts, but at broad scales
these changes have typically proven difficult to analyse in a systematic manner. This
paper explores an outcome-driven deductive methodology for geomorphological
analysis that structures current knowledge and understanding using fuzzy logic
concepts. Building on recent large-scale coastal investigations and with reference to a
case study of the East Anglian coast U.K, the methodology defines the active coastal
system using a flexible generic classification and integrates expert opinion, using the
notion of possibility, as a basis for the assessment of potential future
geomorphological response to changes in sea level and sediment supply.
The proposed methodology produces a robust qualitative structure for assessment and
forecasting of coastal geomorphology. Preliminary results for the East Anglian coast
suggest that shoreline management is already having, and will continue to be, a
significant influence on coastal evolution irrespective of the rate of sea-level rise.
Therefore, significant potential exists to guide future coastal evolution towards
preferred outcomes by using such methods as a component of adaptive shoreline
management. This methodology could be applied to a wide range of problems both in
geomorphology and other subjects..

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: fuzzy logic; model framework, sea level, coastal
management, sediment supply, East Anglia

-2-
 INTRODUCTION

Prediction of geomorphological change at any scale requires the consideration of

numerous influences, both physical and human-induced. This complexity, combined

with uncertainty, can lead to as many explanations as there are detailed studies,

creating difficulties for policy making at scales above the local. Most predictive

research has focused on the development and testing of statistical techniques.

Although process-based geomorphological models at broader scales are being

developed (e.g. WALKDEN and HALL, 2005), the limitations of such detailed

quantitative modelling have been widely acknowledged (see HAFF, 1996;

WOLSTENHOLME, 1999). Similarly, in practice, reasoning and judgment play a

primary role, with ultimate confidence in model outputs being dependent on an

intuitive understanding of the system being modelled (BECK, 1999; WRIGHT,

LAWRENCE and COLLOPY, 1996). It is not surprising, therefore, that the prospective

benefits of directly incorporating expertise and understanding within

geomorphological models have been explored over the last decade (COOPER and

PILKEY, 2004; HARRISON, 2001; HESS and KING, 2002; KIRKBY, 1996; SHU-HSIEN

LIAO, 2005; SPEDDING, 1997).

In this paper we describe an alternative approach to predicting geomorphological

change. This outcome-driven methodology examines a number of possible

futures/outcomes and assesses the likelihoods of each within a framework of ideas

from Bayesian analyses, probabilistic reasoning and fuzzy logic, inorder to explore

landscape form and its behaviour in response to external influences over both time

and space (GROEN and MOSLEH, 2005; SUTHERLAND, 2006). This paper illustrates
this methodology, by predicting coastal geomorphological change to the East Anglian

coast UK over the medium term (10-100 years) and regional scale (10-100km).

FUTURE STATES, FUZZY LOGIC AND THE ANALYSIS OF

COASTAL CHANGE

Working over the medium term at a scale where data availability and detailed process

understanding is variable, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research1 is

exploring the integrated assessment of coastal units, such as sedimentary cells and

sub-cells, to allow the investigation of strategic coastal planning (including shoreline

management) in response to sea-level rise. This includes the development of a

capacity for the simulation of changes in coastal flood and erosion risk, biodiversity,

and social and economic resources.

The approach adopted for this model, called the Coastal Simulator, is illustrated in

Figure 1. Within this, the identification of physical / geomorphological states and

their likely occurrence is fundamental. While recognising that an infinite range of

possible futures can occur, this approach assumes these states can be condensed into a

limited range of descriptive categories. This is because most states reflect degrees of

the same outcome rather than discrete entities. This is illustrated in the case of a cliff

section by the fact that it effectively only has few possible futures – to remain static or

to retreat by varying extents. Defining these categories and assessing the likelihood

that each will occur will usually provide most of the information practitioners require.

Providing a single precise estimates, even with some estimate of error is often likely

1
Details of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Programme can be found at
www.tyndall.ac.uk

-4-
to be more confusing. This approach thus gives answers that are appropriate to the

uncertainty.

Figure 1. Outcome-driven framework used for the prediction of coastal change within the coastal

simulator (after SUTHERLAND, 2006)

The definition of a limited number of future states is also able to incorporate the

influence of shoreline management, which in many densely populated and

economically developed areas focuses on the maintenance of a pre-determined

defensive line by (i) hard defences which exclude natural processes or (ii) the

manipulation of natural processes e.g. beach nourishment. This promotes an

understanding of the interdependency of management policy and coastal dynamics

(e.g. COOPER and JAY, 2002; e.g. LEAFE, PETHICK and TOWNEND, 1998) and an

appreciation of the fact that a number of alternative futures are possible (e.g. BOWEN

and RILEY, 2003; THORNE, EVANS and PENNING-ROWSELL, 2007). Thus, proper

assessment of potential future risks and appropriate management decisions, flexible in

the face of uncertainty, can be made (TOWNEND, 2002; WILCOCK et al., 2003). By

-5-
using this approach to defining geomorphological change, the consequences for other

key coastal factors, such as biodiversity and economic and social development,

becomes easier to assess. With conventional modelling, such consequence. have to be

recalculated if there is a change in the model structure or parameter value used. By

contrast, with a limited number of outcomes the consequences of each can be assessed

and a change in the structure or assumptions simply alters the likelihood of each

outcome.

A number of approaches to modelling with qualitative knowledge are available. Of

these, fuzzy logic, initially introduced in the 1960s (ZADEH, 1965), offers concepts

and a methodology which underlie the aims of an outcome-driven model

(SUTHERLAND, 2006). Instead of Boolean logic, it uses a collection of fuzzy sets

(classes with inexact boundaries) and rules to simplify and reason about data (see

KRUSE, BOUGH and NAUCK, 2000; KRUSE, GEBHARDT and KLAWONN, 1994; ZADEH,

2002; ZADEH et al., 1975; ZIMMERMAN, 2001). Fuzzy logic offers an organized and

‘mathematical’ method of handling imprecise concepts and/or data (YU and PARK,

2000) and is capable of incorporating multiple outcomes (NGUYEN, 1997) and has

previously been applied to predicting geological change (DEMICO and KLIR, 2004).

This approach does not, however, preclude the use of quantitative data; fuzzy analysis

is able to incorporate information from a crisp (discrete) to a continuous (fuzzy) form

and ‘defuzzification’ does not conflict with the process of collecting, classifying and

analysing data (SILVERT, 1997). Fuzzy sets allow for a level of abstraction and

generalisation, commensurate with a regional scale of coastal description and

classification which can, using linguistic rather than numerical variables, be organised

within a reasoned and logically sufficient (‘if….then’) structure. Judicious use of

descriptive terminology also permits non-explicit linkages between variables, for

-6-
example geomorphological drivers and behaviours (BRECKLING, 1992; BROWN, 2006;

METTERNICHT, 2001; RICHARDS, 2004), which can then be associated with likelihood

valuations. This structure is compatible with the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-

Response (DPSIR) frameworks which are being increasingly used for environmental

assessment (BORJA et al., 2006; HOLMAN et al., 2005a; HOLMAN et al., 2005b; e.g.

OECD, 1993; PIRRONE et al., 2005) and provides a simplified, diagrammatic

foundation for later model simulations.

METHODOLOGY

Model framework

DPSIR is a general framework for organising information about the environment

which assumes cause-effect relationships between interacting components of social,

economic, and environmental systems (ROTMANS et al., 1994). While often not

explicitly described, this framework underlies much recent research and has proven to

be a logical and efficient way to deliver information in a well-structured and user-

friendly manner. In this study, the PSIR framework was simply defined, being based

on four assumptions: (i) the premise that a small number of physiological and

functional properties are required to explain the basic working of a complex world

(e.g. HARRIS 1999 as cited in REYNOLDS, 2002); (ii) analysis can be based on discrete

and interacting physiographic units as used in shoreline management planning

(LEAFE, PETHICK and TOWNEND, 1998); (iii) a dynamic equilibrium exists between

contemporary surface processes and the external driving forces which influence

behaviour and (iv) a systems approach, with inputs, throughputs and outputs, can be

used to determine change within the coastal system. The framework was divided into

four main stages (Figure 2): the first three of these stages form the focus of this paper.

-7-
Figure 2. Four stage PSIR framework for predicting geomorphological change on the coast

Regional landscape classification

An important first step in applying this methodology is the analysis of the coastal

landscape. This is used to create a generic classification based on the identification of

individual and combinations of geomorphological features. Ideally this classification

would apply both alone and under the influence of coastal defences. Where amounts

of detailed information are spatially-variable, e,g, as at the regional scale, a simplified

classification is appropriate. The characteristics and boundaries of coastal units are

largely controlled by geology and morphology, position and grouping of

interconnected landforms (HASCHENBURGER and SOUCH, 2004; LESER, 1978;

RASINMAKI, 2003). In cross-section, individual coastal landforms (here termed

-8-
elements) can be identified from changes in lithology, slope, relative elevation, degree

of tidal influence and relative position. These elements can be described generically

(e.g. reef, foreshore, cliff, barrier) forming the basis of a simplified regional coastal

classification (Figure 3). Elements have clear long-shore limits and, in combination,

can also be classified broadly into barrier and non-barrier coastal types (see Table 1).

Figure 3. Generic morphological elements of the coastal system

Table 1. Example cross-shore element combinations and classification

Coastal Profile class Cross-shore element combination

type
Non-barrier Non-barrier(low) Foreshore
Non-barrier (cliffed) Backshore; foreshore
Barrier a)With channel (Tidally influenced) back-barrier; barrier;
foreshore
Barrier-backbarrier
b)Without channel (Non-tidally influenced) backbarrier;
barrier; foreshore
Fringing barrier Backshore; barrier; foreshore

-9-
Within this unmodified classification all coastal morphological elements can be

considered ‘geomorphologically active’. ‘Hard’ coastal defences, as effective cross-

shore barriers to coastal processes, act in the same way as inherited geological or

topographical constraints on the natural coastal system. This results in the

reclassification of the ‘fossilised’ areas as inactive hinterland and the active coastal

system is restricted to elements seaward of the defence line (2001; FRENCH, 1997).

The cross-shore profile of these elements can still be categorised using the previously

described profile classes. This effectively redefines (and reduces) the active coastal

system on which climate change is an influence (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Illustration of modified landscape classification. A) Cross-shore profile modification.

B) Long-shore profile modification

-10-
Describing potential change

An outcome-driven model requires the identification of a limited range of both future

states and drivers of the coastal system. . As future states are all comparative, this is

achieved by the use of ordered linguistic terminology in the form of value, direction

or rate descriptions (MCINTOSH, 2003). These include all prospective degrees of

change and have basic conceptual advantages when defining and reasoning between

drivers of change and responses. It also requires identifying the initial reference state.

This may vary according to the research being undertaken, but would logically be the

current active coastal configuration.

As change for drivers is always comparative, it is represented by three classes relative

to the reference state (<, =, >); for example, the rate of sea-level rise would be

described as (i) accelerating; (ii) no change, or (iii) decelerating when compared to

existing conditions.

For potential future geomorphological states, change is encapsulated by migration and

changes in geometry of the coastal profile. Basic responses can be captured and

conveyed using one element as a key indicator, with other elements adjusted

accordingly. This indicator element should be selected from a geomorphological

knowledge of system relationships and with relevance to management interests

(GAGLIARDI, ROSCIA and LAZAROIU, 2007).

Migration, the spatial adjustment of coastal landforms in order to maintain their

relative position within the coastal system (PETHICK, 2001), can simply be described

as (i) landward movement; (ii) no movement; or (iii) seaward movement relative to

the initial position of the coastal element. Changes in the geometry of the indicator

-11-
element are related to sediment availability relationships (BAUER and DAVIDSON-

ARNOTT, 2003; COOPER, HOOKE and BRAY, 2001; FORBES et al., 1995; NICHOLLS,

DREDGE and WILSON, 2000) and, in plan for example, elements can either (i) widen;

(ii) narrow; or (iii) remain constant when compared to its initial state. These

outcomes can be combined to provide a simple matrix of potential future states (Table

2).

Table 2. An example matrix of potential future states, which is then completed for the indicator

element

POTENTIAL FUTURE STATES Positional change

Landward No change Seaward
Geometric Widen
change No change
Narrow

Using this matrix, the possibility that a given state occurs in relation to a particular

driver can be described in the form of a likelihood statement. At this stage, the use of

expert judgement is integral to the approach. By using likelihood values rather than

probability (as the latter infers an absolute numerical value), qualitative expert

judgement is incorporated. Using a change matrix (Table 2), the relative likelihood

for each future state is assessed using a limited number of pre-defined (fuzzy) value

judgements according to expert knowledge and understanding of the coastal system

under consideration. Two steps are required:

1. the elimination of outcomes that are considered geomorphologically impossible;

and

2. the assessment of the relative likelihood of occurrence between remaining

possible outcomes (i.e. high, medium, low).

-12-
In completing likelihood matrices, a series of ‘if….then’ questions are effectively

being answered through a systematic procedure. This needs to be formalised within

the DPSIR framework to create a transparent, widely applicable rule-base that can be

applied where similar conditions are found. These rules are flexible and can be

altered/deleted/added according to the coastal system being investigated or as

knowledge and understanding develops. The rules and matrices can be completed by

individuals, which can be aggregated using an iterative approach such as the Delphi

technique (MUNIER and RONDE, 2001; OLIVER, 2002; ROWE and WRIGHT, 1999) or

by group consensus where facilitators allow debate and discussion within the confines

of the project aims. Either approach will procure a confidence level for each

likelihood; i.e. an undisputed likelihood can be assigned a high confidence level

whereas one which is strongly debated will have a lower confidence value.

THE EAST ANGLIAN COAST – CASE STUDY

The potential of a more qualitative approach to describing regional coastal behaviour

has recently been highlighted in the UK by FUTURECOAST, a large-scale coastal

analysis carried out for the UK Government’s Department for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs (DEFRA). This study used a qualitative, expert-based, approach to

describe future geomorphological trends along the coasts of England and Wales

(BURGESS, JAY and HOSKING, 2002; COOPER and JAY, 2002; HALCROW, 2002).

Building on the knowledge available from the FUTURECOAST project and other

Tyndall Centre-funded research, the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts of East Anglian coast,

southern North Sea (Figure 5) were selected as a suitable test case for the

methodology described above. These coasts exhibit a variety of open coast and

estuarine landforms, although only the open coast forms are analysed here. Eroding

-13-
cliff sections provide a variable sediment supply (mud, sand and gravel) and are

significant in terms of sediment provision to neighbouring sand and gravel beaches

and associated landforms (CLAYTON, 1989; DICKSON et al., 2005; HANSON and

NICHOLLS, 2001). The coast has many challenging management issues including

extensive artificial defences.

Figure 5. The Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, East Anglia, UK

For this initial testing of the proposed methodology, the prognosis period was limited

to 50 years (i.e. to the 2050s) and coastal change drivers limited to sea-level rise and

sediment availability.

Regional landscape classification

The generic elements and profile classes found on the wave-dominated open coasts of

East Anglia are described and illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 3 respectively.

Mapping the distribution of these elements produced a series of potential coastal

configurations dependent on the application of five regional shoreline management

-14-
scenarios (described in Table 3), which were collectively considered to reflect,

between two extremes, the range of realistic future policy alternatives.

Table 3. Definition of generic regional management policy scenarios used during the project

Management option Definition

Total defence (TD) defence line continuous at Mean High Water

Maintain the maintains the defence line in its position as defined by the
existing line (MEL) EA and Local Authorities (current system state)

Small-scale realigns the defence line landward while protecting most

realignment (SSR) settlements
Large-scale realigns the defence line to protect major assets only
realignment (LSR)
no management interference in the natural system – all
No defences (ND) existing defences are abandoned and removed

Initial comparison indicates that, regionally, the active coastal system is substantially

different under each of the differing management scenarios. Notable differences in

system composition (see example Suffolk coast profile classifications in Figure 6)

were found. The reduction in ‘non-barrier (cliffed)’ profiles, with increased

intervention, implies the effective functioning of the biophysical system may be

impaired as the cliffs are a major source of sediment on the East Anglian coast

(CLAYTON, 1989) – at the extreme, under the total defence scenario the active coastal

system is reduced to a single profile type - non-barrier (low) - with no new sediment

input from cliff erosion.

Significant variations in the area of active backbarrier (saltmarsh and mudflat

habitats) are prominent as a result of the reclassification. Compared to the Maintain

the Line (MEL) management option (the current and reference state), the more

strategic Large-scale Realignment (LSR) option restores active backbarrier areas to an

area comparable to an undefended shoreline. The more piecemeal Small-Scale

Realignment (SSR) management option also increases active backbarrier areas but

-15-
most are spatially concentrated on the North Norfolk coast. This has important

implications for biodiversity (loss/gain of habitat over substantial areas), maintenance

costs for the defence line (as it is fully exposed to tidal and wave impacts as the

protective beach morphology is lost or degraded) and the character of the coastal

landscape itself (including cultural, amenity and tourism benefits).

-16-
Figure 6. Classification of the active coastal system in Suffolk under
und differing management

scenarios with geographical location

-17-
Describing future states

On the East Anglian open coast, coarse sediments (sands and gravels) are dominant,

which implies that foreshore behaviour is the most representative indicator element

for the non-barrier coastlines (DICKSON et al., 2005; WALKDEN and HALL, 2005) but

with barrier behaviour for barrier coastlines. The sediment type also indicates that

linkages between indicator elements can be established using existing studies of long-

shore transport, sediment cells/sub-cells and sediment budgets (COOPER, HOOKE and

BRAY, 2001; e.g. MAFF et al., 1995; SNSSTS, 2002). This was used to determine the

start, end and drift direction for a group of linked profiles. Where long-shore drift is

not known, or believed not to be a dominant process, onshore-offshore sediment

transport with a neutral long-shore flux was assumed. Long-shore relationships were

captured using sub-categories of barrier elements (Table 4). These indicate

differences in long-shore continuity, which may be influential when determining

future behaviour and assessing future states.

Table 4. Barrier element subcategories

Barrier Barrier East Anglian

Profile class Example
category description example
Scolt Head Island,
Barrier-backbarrier Type 1 Unattached barrier Barrier island
Norfolk
Barrier attached at Blakeney Spit,
Barrier-backbarrier Type 2
one end
Spit
Norfolk
Barrier attached at
Barrier-backbarrier Type 3
both ends
Barrier beach Minsmere, Suffolk
Barrier attached at
Fringing barrier Type 4
rear
Raised beach; Ness Aldeburgh

Barrier-backbarrier Type 5
Discontinuous River mouth or
River Deben
with channel barrier breached barrier

Changes in drivers

Changes in sediment budgets were described as (i) positive budgets (input > output),

which result in an internal volume increase; (ii) neutral budgets (input = output),

-18-
indicating no internal change in sediment volume; and (iii) negative budgets (input <

output), where an internal volume decrease occurs. The rate of sea-level rise was

described as (i) accelerated – an increase compared to the current rate; (ii) no change

– current rate is maintained; or (iii) decelerated – a decrease compared to the current

rate.

Changes in coastal elements

For each indicator element, the relationship between sediment supply (as volume) and

simplified geomorphological response was captured using triangular prisms.

Geometrical relationships between volume, height, width and length, can be used to

illustrate alterations in form (Figure 7). In this instance, cross-shore width was used as

the nominated variable for the likelihood matrix.

Figure 7. Triangular prisms used to describe indicator elements on the East Anglian coast>>

Migration was described as either landward, no change or seaward, relative to the

centre line of the foreshore or the crest line of the barrier.

For barrier elements, an additional geomorphological possibility of major interest to

the coastal manager is a break in long-shore continuity, i.e. a breach, which is usually

-19-
associated with extreme catastrophic events such as the well-known 1953 storm surge

(MCROBIE, SPENCER and GERRITSEN, 2005). Some breaches may be temporary and

will naturally seal; others may remain as new tidal inlets, substantially and

permanently changing landward elements. Permanent breaches were considered to be

more strongly associated with particular future states. For example a narrowing

barrier (which in accordance with geometric rules is also a lowering) is more likely to

breach than a widening barrier, irrespective of height. Breaching was therefore

included as a conditional possibility within the likelihood matrices.

Likelihood matrices

To complete the likelihood matrices, a number of coastal experts with knowledge of

the East Anglian coast were invited to participate in a workshop held in London in

November 2004. Following discussion of the project approach, the group was

divided and the assembled experts invited to complete selected likelihood matrices. A

consensus approach (HERRERA, HERRERA-VIEDMA and VERDEGAY, 1996;

HOLLINGSHEAD, 1996) was used at the workshop as open debate and discussion were

considered appropriate to the development of the methodology at this point.

However, issues regarding selective participation (see BELL, RAIFFA and TVERSKY,

1988; MILLIGAN, O'RIODAN and WATKINSON, 2006; OUCHI, 2004) would need to be

considered in depth in any future use of the methodology. Table 5 illustrates an

example of a completed likelihood matrix.

Table 5. Example of a likelihood change matrix completed for an unconstrained barrier at the

expert workshop for a combine scenario whereby there is no change in the rate of sea-level rise

and increased sediment supply

-20-
 Geometric Migration Breach
change
No
Landward Seaward
movement
GROUP 1 Widen NONE HIGH MEDIUM LOW
No change NONE NONE NONE
Narrow NONE NONE NONE
GROUP 2 Widen NONE HIGH LOW NONE
No change NONE NONE NONE
Narrow NONE NONE NONE

No additional potential outcomes were considered to be missing. As shown in Table

5, there was no difference between the groups in terms of which future states were

considered possible. There was also agreement between the groups as to the state with

the highest likelihood, indicating a high level of confidence in the prediction.

Predicting coastal futures

The likelihood matrices from the workshop were then used to produce regional

geomorphological predictions for the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts. Figure 8 illustrates

the steps undertaken, as a series of “if…then” statements and rules, to determine the

influence, over a 50 year time span, of no change in the rate of sea-level rise on the

coast of East Anglia. Sediment availability scenarios were determined for each

indicator element by capturing long-shore sediment relationships through the effect of

the management policy options relative to the reference state. For example, if a non-

barrier cliffed profile in an undefended coast becomes a non-barrier low profile

following the selection of a management scenario then down-drift profiles will have a

negative sediment budget until the end of the drift section or a intermediate non-

barrier cliffed profile is reached; conversely, if a defence is removed from a non-

barrier (low) section in front of a cliff then the down-drift sediment budget was

-21-
deemed to be positive. Application of the initial series of “if…then” rules of sediment

supply highlighted the importance of the relative long-shore lengths of adjacent

profiles over time. Despite these modifications the rule-base remained simple and

was easily applied. Another important factor to note in this context is that the

location of drift divides becomes increasingly influential when applying management

scenarios as the selection of the sediment supply condition for down-drift sections is

closely related.

Figure 8. Flow diagram showing the framework for determining possible future coastal

configurations

-22-
Figure 9. Regional summaries of potential responses to a constant rate of sea-level rise under

differing management scenarios for the next 50 years

The most likely future states for the East Anglian coast under each management

scenario are shown in Figure 9. Each management option alters the balance between

barrier and non-barrier profiles (change in indicator elements, Figure 9a) with the

foreshore becoming increasingly the more dominant element as the management

option becomes more interventionist towards the Total Defence option. For the

‘Maintain the Line’ and ‘Total Defence’ options strongly associated with non-barrier

(low) profiles during reclassification, the prevention of cliff erosion implies selection

of negative sediment budgets (less input than the reference state) within the ‘if…then’

-23-
rule structure. Consequently, for these management options, no movement other than

landward is considered likely (Figure 9b) and increasing lengths of the active coastal

zone are predicted to narrow (Figure 9c). High levels of confidence are associated

with these predictions. The increase in narrowing as a response option where a

barrier remains the indicator element also increased the length of coast for which

breaching was considered likely. By comparison, for the realignment and undefended

options, positive sediment input occurred. This produced occasions where existing

barriers and foreshores had the potential to increase in sediment volume and

alternative future states, including seaward movement of these elements, were

considered possible.

The results obtained from the Norfolk/Suffolk case study indicate that the positioning

and length of defences are major influences on the future behaviour of the coastal

system. By altering sediment supply and imposing physical constraints around the

coastal system, management policies (and therefore socio-economic values) may thus

be more influential than sea-level rise as a determinant of future coastal evolution.

CONCLUSIONS

The strengths of the outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach described here lie in its

qualitative description and simple, adaptive structure. While not seen as a

replacement for process-based modelling, qualitative modelling of this kind can be

extremely valuable as a precursor to more quantitative models. It is an essential step

in the development of any quantitative simulation modelling (WOLSTENHOLME,

1999). The outcome-driven approach within a PSIR framework has the potential for

dealing with a range of complex problems, not just restricted to geomorphology,

where a limited range of possible future states can be defined and presented. Applied

-24-
to the East Anglian coast, the approach provided a coherent conceptual structure

within which broad patterns of geomorphological responses to climate change and

hypothetical management responses were evaluated. Even at this preliminary stage,

broad behavioural characteristics could be distinguished which, when applied,

highlighted the relative importance of sea-level rise and management policy on future

coastal evolution.

The linguistic terminology and structure of fuzzy logic necessitated the distillation of

the coastal system to its essential aspects. Simplifying a complex system in this

manner is not unproblematic and is likely to involve some debate over the degree of

abstraction which is applicable. However, it is capable of achieving useful results at a

regional level. Here, policy development can readily incorporate insight by inference

(qualitative data) rather than detailed quantification. Furthermore, the description of

multiple possible future states with associated likelihood valuations can be used as a

basis for guiding management actions. Also, the qualitative, expert-based,

geomorphological reasoning allows the methodology to be consistent across

geomorphological features where detailed quantitative data is unavailable. The model

framework also has the advantage that changes in knowledge, theories or information

(unlike conventional models where assumptions are embedded within computer

coding) will usually just require changing the values within the likelihood tables or

the if…..then rules; both are explicit and straightforward to interpret so can be

challenged and debated by other scientists (SUTHERLAND, 2006). This simple

transparency approach is thus is likely to improve model quality as errors and

unrealistic assumptions are more obvious. The methodology also lends itself to

exploring different views and controversies and how sensitive future coastal evolution

might be to alternative models of controlling factors.

-25-
In addition, the distillation process is a means of compiling a common vocabulary and

language for use within and across disciplinary boundaries (e.g. between

geomorphologists, ecologists, planners and mathematical modellers as discussed

further in SPEDDING, 1997; ZHU et al., 2001) and the conceptually simple design has

stakeholder communication value – especially amongst non-experts where

communication of complex issues is essential if participation in the decision-making

process is to be encouraged.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was carried out under the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change’s

Research Programme (Research project T3.42). The authors would also like to thank

the participants of an expert workshop whose comments and advice were valuable in

the development of this approach.

LITERATURE CITED

BAUER, B. O. and DAVIDSON-ARNOTT, R. G. D. 2003. A general framework for

modeling sediment supply to coastal dunes including wind angle, beach geometry,
and fetch effects. Geomorphology, 49, (1-2), 89-108.
BECK, M. B. 1999. Coping with ever larger problems, models and databases. Water
Science and Technology, 39, (4), 1-11.
BELL, D. E., RAIFFA, H. and TVERSKY, A. 1988. Decision making: Descriptive,
normative and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 623p.
BORJA, A., GALPARSORO, I., SOLAUN, O., MUXIKA, I., TELLO, E. M., URIARTE, A. and
VALENCIA, V. 2006. The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a
methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological
status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66, (1-2), 84-96.
BOWEN, R. E. and RILEY, C. 2003. Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal
management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, (3-4), 299-312.
BRECKLING, B. 1992. Uniqueness of ecosystems versus generalizability and
predictability in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 63, (1-4), 13-27.

-26-
BROWN, I. 2006. Modelling future landscape change on coastal floodplains using a
rule-based GIS. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21, 1479-1490.
BURGESS, K. A., JAY, H. and HOSKING, A. 2002. FUTURECOAST: Predicting the
future coastal evolution of England and Wales. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference - Littoral 2002, The Changing Coast. Porto, Portugal. EUROCOAST, 2,
295-301.
CLAYTON, K. M. 1989. Sediment inputs from the North Norfolk cliffs, Eastern
England - A century of coast protection and its effect. Journal of Coastal Research, 5,
(3), 433-442.
COOPER, J. A. G. and PILKEY, O. H. 2004. Alternatives to mathematical modelling of
beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 20, (3), 641-644.
COOPER, N. J., HOOKE, J. M. and BRAY, M. J. 2001. Predicting coastal evolution using
a sediment budget approach: a case study from southern England. Ocean and Coastal
Management, 44, 711-728.
COOPER, N. J. and JAY, H. 2002. Predictions of large-scale coastal tendency:
development and application of a qualitative behaviour-based methodology. Journal
of Coastal Research, 36, 173-181.
Demico, R.V. and Klir, G.J. (Eds) Fuzzy logic in geology. San Diego, USA. Academic Press,
347pp.
DICKSON, M., WALKDEN, M., HALL, J., PEARSON, S. and REES, J. 2005. Numerical
modelling of potential climate-change impacts on rates of soft-cliff recession,
northeast Norfolk, UK. SANCHEZ-ARCILLA, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Coastal Dynamics. 4-8th April 2005; Barcelona, Spain.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (CD ROM).
FORBES, D. L., ORFORD, J. D., CARTER, R. W. G., SHAW, J. and JENNINGS, S. C. 1995.
Morphodynamic evolution, self-organisation, and instability of coarse-clastic barriers
on paraglacial coasts. Marine Geology, 126, (1-4), 63-85.
FRENCH, P. W. 1997. Coastal and estuarine management. London, UK: Routledge,
251ppp.
FRENCH, P. W. 2001. Coastal defences. London, UK: Routledge, 384p.
GAGLIARDI, F., ROSCIA, M. and LAZAROIU, G. 2007. Evaluation of sustainability of a
city through fuzzy logic. Energy, 32, (5), 795-802.
GROEN, F. J. and MOSLEH, A. 2005. Foundations of probabilistic inference with
uncertain evidence. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 39, (1), 49-83.
HAFF, P. K. 1996. Limitations on predictive modelling in geomorphology. In RHOADS,
B. L. and THORN, C. E. (Eds.) The scientific nature of geomorphology. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, pp.337-358.
HALCROW 2002. Futurecoast. Three CD set comprising reports and interactive map
browser. Two CDs with oblique aerial photography of the shoreline of England and
Wales. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/futurecoast.htm.
HANSON, S. and NICHOLLS, R. J. 2001. Uncertainties in sediment inputs from coastal
erosion. HANSON, H. and LARSON, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Conference
on Coastal Dynamics. 11-15 June, Lund, Sweden. ASCE, 607-616.

-27-
HARRISON, S. 2001. On reductionism and emergence in geomorphology. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers, 26, (3), 327-339.
HASCHENBURGER, J. K. and SOUCH, C. 2004. Contributions to the Understanding of
Geomorphic Landscapes Published in the Annals. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 94, (4), 771-793.
HERRERA, F., HERRERA-VIEDMA, E. and VERDEGAY, J. L. 1996. A model of consensus
in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78,
(1), 73-87.
HESS, G. R. and KING, T. J. 2002. Planning open spaces for wildlife: I. Selecting focal
species using a Delphi survey approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, (1), 25-
40.
HOLLINGSHEAD, A. 1996. The rank-order effect in group decision making.
Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 68, (3), 181-193.
HOLMAN, I. P., NICHOLLS, R. J., BERRY, P. M., HARRISON, P. A., AUDSLEY, E.,
SHACKLEY, S. and ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A. 2005a. A regional, multi-sectoral and
integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the
UK: Part II Results. Climatic Change, 71, (1-2), 43-73.
HOLMAN, I. P., ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A., SHACKLEY, S., HARRISON, P. A., NICHOLLS, R.
J., BERRY, P. M. and AUDSLEY, E. 2005b. A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated
assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part I
Methodology. Climatic Change, 71 (1-2), 9-41.
KIRKBY, M. 1996. A role for theoretical models in geomorphology? In RHOADS, B. L.
and THORN, C. E. (Eds.) The scientific nature of geomorphology. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, pp.257-272.
KRUSE, R., GEBHARDT, J. and KLAWONN, F. 1994. Foundations of fuzzy systems.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 278p.
KRUSE, R., BOUGH, C. and NAUCK, D. 2000. Problems and prospects in fuzzy data
analysis. Available at http://fuzzy.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~borgelt/papers/bt2.pdf. Last
accessed 1st December 2005.
LEAFE, R., PETHICK, J. and TOWNEND, I. 1998. Realizing the benefits of shoreline
management. The Geographical Journal, 164, (3), 282-290.
LESER, H. 1978. Medium-scale geomorphological mapping and landscape ecology. In
DEMECK, J. and EMBLETON, C. (Eds.) Guide to medium-scale geomorphological
mapping. E.Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart, pp.149-169.
MAFF, THE WELSH OFFICE, ASSOCIATION OF DISTRICT COUNCILS, ENGLISH NATURE
and NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY 1995. Shoreline Management Plans: a guide for
coastal defence authorities. Publication PB 2197. London, UK: Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
MCINTOSH, B. S. 2003. Qualitative modelling with imprecise ecological knowledge: a
framework for simulation. Environmental Modelling and Software, 18, (3-4), 295-
307.
MCROBIE, A., SPENCER, T. and GERRITSEN, H. 2005. The Big Flood: North Sea storm
surge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 363, 1261-1491.

-28-
METTERNICHT, G. 2001. Assessing temporal and spatial changes of salinity using
fuzzy logic, remote sensing and GIS. Foundations of an expert system. Ecological
Modelling, 144, (2-3), 163-179.
MILLIGAN, J., O'RIODAN, T. and WATKINSON, A. 2006. Designing coastlines fit for the
future. English Nature Research Reports, No 702. Peterborough, UK: English Nature,
Available at: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/702.pdf.
MUNIER, F. and RONDE, P. 2001. The role of knowledge codification in the emergence
of consensus under uncertainty: empirical analysis and policy implications. Research
Policy, 30, (9), 1537-1551.
NGUYEN, H. T. 1997. Fuzzy sets and probability. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 90, (2), 129-
132.
NICHOLLS, R. J., DREDGE, A. and WILSON, T. 2000. Shoreline change and fine-grained
sediment input: Isle of Sheppey coast, Thames Estuary, UK. In PYE, K. and ALLEN, J.
R. L. (Eds.) Coastal and estuarine environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and
geoarchaeology. Special Publication 175. London: Geological Society of London,
pp.305-316.
OECD 1993. OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews.
Environment Monographs No. 83. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), 39ppp.
OLIVER, I. 2002. An expert panel-based approach to the assessment of vegetation
condition within the context of biodiversity conservation: Stage 1: the identification
of condition indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2, (3), 223-237.
OUCHI, F. 2004. A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk
analysis. Policy Research Working Paper 3201. World Bank,
http://econ.worldbank.org
PETHICK, J. 2001. Coastal management and sea level rise. Catena, 42, 307-322.
PHILLIPS, J. D. 2003. Sources of non-linearity and complexity in geomorphic systems.
Progress in Physical Geography, 27, (1), 1-23.
PIRRONE, N., TROMBINO, G., CINNIRELLA, S., ALGIERI, A., BENDORICCHIO, G. and
PALMERI, L. 2005. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach for
integrated catchment-coastal zone management: preliminary application to the Po
catchment-Adriatic Sea coastal zone system. Regional Environmental Change, 5, (2-
3), 111-137.
RASINMAKI, J. 2003. Modelling spatio-temporal environmental data. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 18, (10), 877-886.
REYNOLDS, C. S. 2002. Ecological pattern and ecosystem theory. Ecological
Modelling, 158, 181-200.
RICHARDS, R. M., JR., 2004. A visual, hierarchical approach to implementing rule-
based algorithms in classification of discrete, homogenous objects. Decision Support
Systems, 38, (1), 81-89.
ROTMANS, J., VAN ASSELT, M. B. A., DE BRUIN, A. J., DEN ELZEN, M. G. J., DE GREEF,
J., HILDERINK, H. B. M., HOEKSTRA, A. Y., JANSSEN, M. A., KOSTER, H. W.,
MARTENS, W. J. M., NIESEN, L. W. and DE VRIES, H. J. M. 1994. Global change and
sustainable development. A modelling perspective for the next decade. Copenhagen,

-29-
Demnark: The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM),
80p.
ROWE, G. and WRIGHT, G. 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues
and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, (4), 353-375.
SHU-HSIEN LIAO 2005. Expert system methodologies and applications--a decade
review from 1995 to 2004. Expert Systems with Applications, 28, (1), 93-103.
SILVERT, W. 1997. Ecological impact classification with fuzzy sets. Ecological
Modelling, 96, 1-10.
SNSSTS 2002. Southern North Sea Sediment Transport Study - Phase 2. Report EX
4526 produced for Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Wallingford H R, Available at
http://www.sns2.org. Last accessed 20 January 2006.
SPEDDING, N. 1997. On growth and form in geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms, 22, (3), 261-265.
SUTHERLAND, W. 2006. Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental
change: a review of the methods. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 599-616.
THORNE, C., EVANS, E. and PENNING-ROWSELL, E. (Eds.) 2007. Future flooding and
coastal erosion risks. London, UK: Thomas Telford, 528p.
TOWNEND, I. 2002. Marine science for strategic planning and management: the
requirement for estuaries. Marine Policy, 26, (3), 209-219.
WALKDEN, M. J. A. and HALL, J. W. 2005. A predictive mesoscale model of the
erosion and profile development of soft rock shores. Coastal Engineering, 52, 535-
563.
WILCOCK, P. R., SCHMIDT, J. C., WOLMAN, M. G., DIETRICH, W. E., DOMINICK, D.,
DOYLE, M. W., GRANT, G. E., IVERSON, R. M., MONTGOMERY, D. R., PIERSON, T. C.,
SCHILLING, S. P. and WILSON, R. C. 2003. When models meet managers: Examples
from geomorphology. In WILCOCK, P. R. and IVERSON, R. M. (Eds.) Prediction in
geomorphology. Geophysical Monograph 135. Washington DC, USA: American
Geophysical Union, pp.27-40.
WOLSTENHOLME, E. F. 1999. Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving
balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, (4), 422-428.
WRIGHT, G., LAWRENCE, M. J. and COLLOPY, F. 1996. The role and validity of
judgment in forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 12, (1), 1-8.
YU, D. and PARK, W. S. 2000. Combination and evaluation of expert opinions
characterized in terms of fuzzy probabilities. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 27, (8), 713-
726.
ZADEH, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, (3), 338-353.
ZADEH, L. A., FU, K.-S., TANAKA, K. and SHIMURA, M. 1975. Fuzzy sets and their
application to cognitive and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 506p.
ZADEH, L. A. 2002. Toward a perception-based theory of probabilistic reasoning with
imprecise probabilities. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 105, 233-264.
ZHU, A. X., HUDSON, B., BURT, J., LUBICH, K. and SIMONSON, D. 2001. Soil mapping
using GIS, expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 65, 1463 -1472.

-30-
ZIMMERMAN, H.-J. 2001. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. 4th edition. Dortrecht,
Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 544p.

-31-
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Outcome-driven framework used for the prediction of coastal change within
the coastal simulator (after SUTHERLAND, 2006)
Figure 2. Four stage DPSIR framework for predicting geomorphological change on
the coast
Figure 3. Generic morphological elements of the coastal system
Figure 4. Illustration of modified landscape classification. A) Cross-shore profile
modification. B) Long-shore profile modification
Figure 5. The Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, East Anglia, UK
Figure 6. Classification of the active coastal system in Suffolk under differing
management scenarios with geographical location
Figure 7. Triangular prisms used to describe indicator elements on the East Anglian
coast
Figure 8. Flow diagram showing the framework for determining possible future
coastal configurations
Figure 9. Regional summaries of potential responses to a constant rate of sea-level
rise under differing management scenarios for the next 50 years

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Example cross-shore element combinations and classification

Table 2. An example matrix of potential future states which is then completed for the
indicator element
Table 3. Definition of generic regional management policy scenarios used during the
project
Table 4. Barrier element subcategories
Table 5. Example of a likelihood change matrix completed for an unconstrained
barrier at the expert workshop for a combine scenario whereby there is no change in
the rate of sea-level rise and increased sediment supply

-32-
 Tyndall Working Paper series
2000 - 2007

The Tyndall Centre working paper series presents results from research which are mature enough to
be submitted to a refereed journal, to a sponsor, to a major conference or to the editor of a book.
The intention is to enhance the early public availability of research undertaken by the Tyndall family
of researchers, students and visitors. They can be downloaded from the Tyndall Website at:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml
The accuracy of working papers and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s)
alone and not the Tyndall Centre.

Papers available in this series are:

• Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H. (2007) • Walkden M, Dickson M, (2006) The

Conceptualizing climate change response of soft rock shore profiles to
governance beyond the international increased sea-level rise. : Tyndall Centre
regime: A review of four theoretical Working Paper 105
approaches: Tyndall Working Paper No. 112
• Dawson R., Hall J, Barr S, Batty M., Bristow
• Doulton, H., Brown, K. (2007) ‘Ten years to A, Carney S, Evans E.P., Kohler J., Tight M,
prevent catastrophe’? Discourses of Walsh C, Ford A, (2007) A blueprint for the
climate change and international integrated assessment of climate change in
development in the UK press: Tyndall cities. : Tyndall Centre Working Paper 104
Working Paper No. 111
• Dickson M., Walkden M., Hall J., (2007)
• Dawson, R.J., et al (2007) Integrated Modelling the impacts of climate change on
analysis of risks of coastal flooding and an eroding coast over the 21st
cliff erosion under scenarios of long term Century: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 103
change: Tyndall Working Paper No. 110
• Klein R.J.T, Erickson S.E.H, Næss L.O,
• Okereke, C., (2007) A review of UK FTSE Hammill A., Tanner T.M., Robledo, C., O’Brien
100 climate strategy and a framework for K.L.,(2007) Portfolio screening to support
more in-depth analysis in the context of a the mainstreaming of adaptation to
post-2012 climate regime: Tyndall Centre climatic change into development
Working Paper 109 assistance: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 102

• Gardiner S., Hanson S., Nicholls R., Zhang Z., • Agnolucci P., (2007) Is it going to
Jude S., Jones A.P., et al (2007) The Habitats happen? Regulatory Change and
Directive, Coastal Habitats and Climate Renewable Electricity: Tyndall Centre
Change – Case Studies from the South Working Paper 101
Coast of the UK: Tyndall Centre Working Paper
108 • Kirk K., (2007) Potential for storage of
carbon dioxide in the rocks beneath the
• Schipper E. Lisa, (2007) Climate Change East Irish Sea: Tyndall Centre Working Paper
Adaptation and Development: Exploring 100
the Linkages: Tyndall Centre Working Paper
107 • Arnell N.W., (2006) Global impacts of
abrupt climate change: an initial
• Okereke C., Mann P, Osbahr H, (2007) assessment: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 99
Assessment of key negotiating issues at
Nairobi climate COP/MOP and what it • Lowe T.,(2006) Is this climate porn? How
means for the future of the climate regime. does climate change communication affect
: Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 106 our perceptions and behaviour?, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 98

Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007

• Walkden M, Stansby P,(2006) The effect of
dredging off Great Yarmouth on the wave
conditions and erosion of the North Norfolk
coast. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 97
• Anthoff, D., Nicholls R., Tol R S J, Vafeidis,
A., (2006) Global and regional exposure to
large rises in sea-level: a sensitivity
analysis. This work was prepared for the Stern
Review on the Economics of Climate Change:
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 96
• Few R., Brown K, Tompkins E. L, (2006)
Public participation and climate change
adaptation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 95
• Corbera E., Kosoy N, Martinez Tuna M,
(2006) Marketing ecosystem services
through protected areas and rural
communities in Meso-America:
Implications for economic efficiency,
equity and political legitimacy, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 94
• Schipper E. Lisa, (2006) Climate Risk,
Perceptions and Development in El
Salvador, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 93
• Tompkins E. L, Amundsen H, (2005)
Perceptions of the effectiveness of the
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change in prompting behavioural
change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 92
• Warren R., Hope C, Mastrandrea M, Tol R S
J, Adger W. N., Lorenzoni I., (2006)
Spotlighting the impacts functions in
integrated assessments. Research Report
Prepared for the Stern Review on the
Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall Centre
Paper 91
• Warren R., Arnell A, Nicholls R., Levy P E,
Price J, (2006) Understanding the regional
impacts of climate change: Research
Report Prepared for the Stern Review on
the Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 90
• Barker T., Qureshi M, Kohler J., (2006)
The Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
with Induced Technological Change: A
Meta-Analysis of Estimates in the
Literature, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 89
• Kuang C, Stansby P, (2006) Sandbanks for
coastal protection: implications of sea-level
rise. Part 3: wave modelling, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 88
Tyndall Working Papers
• Kuang C, Stansby P, (2006) Sandbanks for
coastal protection: implications of sea-level
rise. Part 2: current and morphological
modelling, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 87
• Stansby P, Kuang C, Laurence D, Launder B,
(2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection:
implications of sea-level rise. Part 1:
application to East Anglia, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 86
• Bentham M, (2006)
An assessment of carbon sequestration
potential in the UK – Southern North Sea
case study: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 85
• Anderson K., Bows A., Upham P., (2006)
Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation:
contradictions with climate policy,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 84
• Williamson M., Lenton T., Shepherd J.,
Edwards N, (2006) An efficient numerical
terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth
system modelling, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 83
• Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An
analysis of a post-Kyoto climate policy
model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 82
• Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of
energy service contracts, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 81
• Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B.,
Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R.,
(2005) A framework for assessing the
political economy of post-2012 global
climate regime, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
80
• Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005)
Can adaptation and mitigation be
complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
79
• Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and
competition in the non-fossil fuel
obligation market, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 78
• Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R
and Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous
climate change by inducing technological
progress: scenarios using a large-scale
econometric model, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 77
2000 - 2007
• Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political
uncertainty in the Danish renewable
energy market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
76
• Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005)
Beyond probability: new methods for
representing uncertainty in projections of
future climate, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
75
• Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005)
How do the costs of adaptation affect
optimal mitigation when there is
uncertainty, irreversibility and learning?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 74
• Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process
simulator scoping study, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 73
• Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S.,
Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005)
Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster
narrative and public perceptions of climate
change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 72
• Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005)
Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to
low-income communities, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 71
• Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross,
N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J.
and Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a
Major Contribution to UK Energy Supply?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 70
• Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005)
Natural hazards and climate change: what
knowledge is transferable?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 69
• Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The
formation of belief in climate change in
business organisations: a dynamic
simulation model, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 68
• Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan,
T., (2005) Developing regional and local
scenarios for climate change mitigation
and adaptation: Part 2: Scenario creation,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 67
• Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I.,
O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping
actors involved in climate change policy
networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 66
Tyndall Working Papers
• Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L.
(2004) Why do resource managers make
links to stakeholders at other scales?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 65
• Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel
Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 64
• Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats,
S. (2004) Floods, health and climate
change: a strategic review, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 63
• Barker, T. (2004) Economic theory and
the transition to sustainability: a
comparison of
approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62
• Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African
Sahel: long term perspectives and future
prospects, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61
• Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L.
(2004) Scaling adaptation: climate change
response and coastal management in the
UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 60
• Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004)
Modelling Innovation and Threshold Effects
In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 59
• Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social
Simulation of The Public Perceptions of
Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
58
• Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S
(2004) The Public Perceptions of
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A
Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 57
• Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of
social vulnerability to climate change for
Africa, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56
• Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D,
Hulme, M. and New, M. (2004) A
comprehensive set of high-resolution grids
of monthly climate for Europe and the
globe: the observed record (1901-2000)
and 16 scenarios (2001-2100), Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 55
2000 - 2007
• Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., and
O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and
local scenarios for climate change
mitigation and adaptation Part 1: A
framing of the East of England Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 54
• Agnolucci, P. and Ekins, P. (2004) The
Announcement Effect And Environmental
Taxation Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53
• Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex Post Evaluations
of CO2 –Based Taxes: A Survey Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 52
• Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. and Ekins, P.
(2004) Hysteresis and Energy Demand: the
Announcement Effects and the effects of
the UK Climate Change Levy Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 51
• Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. and
Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a
Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 50
• Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our
electricity networks to promote
decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 49
• Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic
structure under technological
development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
48
• Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M.,
(2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational
adaptation to climate change impacts,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47
• Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow,
A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004)
UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 46
• Purdy, R and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological
carbon sequestration: critical legal issues,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45
• Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C.
(2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon
Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 44
• Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003)
Innovation and Threshold Effects in
Technology Responses to Climate Change,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43
Tyndall Working Papers
• Kim, J. (2003) Sustainable Development
and the CDM: A South African Case Study,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42
• Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity
Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 41
• Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai,
S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and
adaptation into climate and development
policy: three research questions, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 40
• Tompkins, E. and Adger, W.N. (2003).
Defining response capacity to enhance
climate change policy, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 39
• Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk
and adaptation: a conceptual framework,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38
• Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003)
Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and
the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 37
• Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I.
(2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising
Transport: The Role of Technologies,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36
• Tompkins E. L and Hurlston, L. (2003).
Report to the Cayman Islands’
Government. Adaptation lessons learned
from responding to tropical cyclones by the
Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 –
2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35
• Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate
policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 34
• Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and
Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts,
Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33
• Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G.
(2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP
into the UK Electricity System:
Investigation of the impact of network
faults on the stability of large offshore
wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
• Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan,
T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs
for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the
pilot-phase interactive integrated
assessment process (Aurion Project),
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31
2000 - 2007
• Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate
change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 30
• Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A
Multi-Criteria Assessment Framework for
Carbon-Mitigation Projects: Putting
“development” in the centre of decision-
making, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29
• Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M.,
Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R.
(2003). Defining and experiencing
dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 28
• Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003).
Building resilience to climate change
through adaptive management of natural
resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27
• Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003).
Country level risk measures of climate-
related natural disasters and implications
for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 26
• Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and
Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of
Network Splitting for Fault Level
Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25
• Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G.
(2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables
and CHP into the UK Transmission
Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24
• Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002).
Justice and adaptation to climate change,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23
• Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T.,
Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and
Combined Heat and Power Resources in
the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22
• Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and
CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 21
• Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing
organisational use of scenarios: Case study
- evaluating UK energy policy options,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20
• Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The
role of hydrogen in powering road
transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19
• Watson, J. (2002). The development of
large technical systems: implications for
hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18
Tyndall Working Papers
• Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy
Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17
• Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway,
D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to
climate change: Setting the Agenda for
Development Policy and Research, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 16
• Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical
change in an energy-environment-economy
(E3) model for an IA system: A model of
Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 15
• Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The
Use of Integrated Assessment: An
Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 14
• Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002).
Technological Change, Industry Structure
and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 13
• Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime
from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or
sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 12
• Barker, T. (2001). Representing the
Integrated Assessment of Climate Change,
Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 11
• Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.
(2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An
Initial Exploration of Public Opinions,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10
• Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001).
Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9
• Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
8
• Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate
Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7
• Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T.
(2001). The identification and evaluation of
suitable scenario development methods for
the estimation of future probabilities of
extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 6
• Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse
Effects and the Impacts of Response
Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 5
2000 - 2007
• Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High • Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A
are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Country-by-Country Analysis of Past and
Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4 Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre
• Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. Working Paper 1
(2001). Socio-economic futures in climate
change impact assessment: using
scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 3

• Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated

Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 2

© Copyright 2007

For further information please contact

Javier Delgado-Esteban

Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007