PORT ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL RISE: LESSONS FROM PRESENT EXAMPLES OF LAND SUBSIDENCE

Miguel Esteban, Hiroshi Takagi, Dyah Fatma, Takahito Mikami, Paolo Valenzuela, Erick Avelino, Richard Crichton, Laurice Jamero, Christopher Chadwick, Motoharu Onuki
2018 Coastal Engineering Proceedings  
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Report, or IPCC 5AR (2013), sea level is rise (SLR) could be in the order of 26 to 98 cm by 2100. However, more onerous predictions, such as those set forth in recent probabilistic process-based models by Kopp et al. (2017), or Bars et al., (2017), indicate that SLR could be almost in the order of almost 3m by the end of the 21st century. As a result of sea level rise a number of authors have stated that many ports and
more » ... t many ports and coastal communities would be forced to relocate or attempt expensive adaptation countermeasures (Yamamoto and Esteban, 2016). However, most of the forecasted problems and their knock-on consequences on coastal communities remain hypothetical, despite a number of past examples of relative sea level rise due to earthquake induced subsidence or groundwater extraction (Jamero et al, 2016, 2017, Takagi et al., 2016, Esteban et al., 2017). In order to better understand the consequences of future sea level rise the authors have analysed the effects of two instances land subsidence that have taken place in the 20th and early 21st century, and the adaptation measures that ports and other low-lying areas have adopted in the northern Japanese region of Tohoku following the 2011 Earthquake Tsunami, and Jakarta in Indonesia (where groundwater extraction has been inducing rates of subsidence of 10-20cm per year in several parts of the city, Takagi et al, 2017). To date, the authors are not aware of any other work that has systematically attempted to learn from real examples of land subsidence as a proxy to study the effects of SLR on ports, despite a number of calls for more research to be done on the subject (Becker et al., 2013).
doi:10.9753/icce.v36.risk.59 fatcat:5mkdm3bi2ngidotqlrd7mnnq44