Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Coastal risk assessment of a micro-tidal littoral plain in response to

sea level rise
Guido Benassai a, Gianluigi Di Paola b, *, Pietro Patrizio Ciro Aucelli c
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universita
Parthenope, Napoli, Italy
b
del Molise, Pesche, IS, Italy
Dipartimento di Bioscienze e Territorio, Universita
c
Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Ambiente, Universita
Parthenope, Napoli, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper illustrates an index-based coastal risk assessment that was performed on a micro-tidal alluvial
Received 2 April 2014 plain taking into account the relative sea level rise (RSLR) for the evaluation of coastal vulnerability and
Received in revised form exposure. This process took into account both the inundation of inshore land and the beach retreat due to
20 November 2014
storm surge, calculated on the basis of geomorphological data (bathymetry, sedimentology and beach
Accepted 20 November 2014
Available online 6 December 2014
width) and wave climate. The evaluation process was conceived with reference to a low and high hazard,
associated with a wave storm with 1 year and 50 years return period. For the latter case, the response to
RSLR was calculated taking into account both isostatic response and ice cap melting due to global
Keywords:
Sele coastal plain
warming, while the vertical land movement was assessed taking into account the different its rates in the
Vulnerability assessment northern and southern coastal area. The exposure and the damage of the coastal assets were evaluated
Risk assessment with a simplified conceptual framework, which uses land cover data and a statistical population dataset.
Relative sea level rise The risk assessment procedure was applied to Sele coastal plain, which involves numerous properties
and important infrastructures, and is strongly susceptible to marine inundations. A sensitivity analysis of
the vulnerability and the risk relative to different hazards and to RSLR was performed. Moreover, the final
risk assessment classification was validated with a conceptual framework based on the observed damage
ranking related to the tested coastal area.
The obtained results showed that the northern high density urban areas were characterized by the
highest risk, followed by some central areas with strong localized erosive focus. On the contrary, the
southern zones, with wider beaches and almost intact dunes, were characterized by the lowest risk level.
The results of this study were used for the development of a coastal protection project which, in fact,
provided a different scheme for the coastline northwards and southwards of the Sele river mouth, ac-
cording to the different risk ranking established.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction generates sea level rise (SLR) for two main reasons, thermal
expansion and ice cap melting. The most recent evidence suggests
As centers of human population, economic activities and social that global sea-level rise could reach 1 m or more during this
developments, coastal areas are frequently subject to natural haz- century (Hansen and Sato, 2012; Grinsted et al., 2010; Pfeffer et al.,
ards. Currently, 634 million people (10% of the world population) 2008; Rahmstorf, 2007; Overpeck et al., 2006). These results are
live in low-lying coastal regions 0e10 m above sea level. In addi- significantly beyond the upper limit of the range cited by the IPCC
tion, coastal populations are steadily increasing through migration (2014): a 90% confidence interval between 26 and 82 cm. However,
(Mc Granaham et al., 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on remote sensing analysis showed a lower increase rate for the
Climate Change (IPCC, 2014), argues that ongoing global change Mediterranean basin in comparison to the global values, because
will cause the sea level to rise in coastal areas. Climate change the Mediterranean Sea is a semi-enclosed basin and therefore does
not respond linearly to the influence of the open ocean (Vigo et al.,
2011). The other climate-related effect in coastal zones besides SLR
* Corresponding author. is the change in frequency, intensity and spatial pattern of coastal
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Benassai), gianluigi.dipaola@ storms, which can have severe consequences for low-lying areas
unimol.it (G. Di Paola), [email protected] (P.P.C. Aucelli).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.015
0964-5691/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 23

prone to coastal and river flooding. Land subsidence and storm coastal landform, shoreline, wave height and tidal range (Thieler
surges will result in permanent flooding of low-lying areas, inland €
et al., 1999; Gornitz et al., 1994, 1997). Ozyurt and Ergin (2010)
extension of episodic flooding, increased beach erosion and saline developed a CVI to specifically assess the impacts induced by Sea
intrusion (Cooper et al., 2008). Sea level rise, land subsidence and Level Rise (SLR). The index is determined through the integration of
storm surges form an important disaster chain. Ongoing land five sub-indices, each one corresponding to a specific SLR related
subsidence amplifies sea level rise, which in turn tends to amplify impact.
storm surges and aggravates the disaster generated by storm surge With respect to the exposure evaluation, the socio-economic
(Karim and Mimura, 2008; Teatini et al., 2012). The inclusion of value of the elements at risk have been identified through the
subsidence gives rise to the so-called Relative Sea Level Rise (RSLR), DPSIR framework (Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-
which is a key factor in risk management and planning at national, Responses model), as recommended by the European Environ-
regional and local scales (Ramieri et al., 2011; Purvis et al., 2008; mental Agency (EUROSION, 2004) and are reported in the literature
Bates et al., 2005). Changes in the intensity and extent of economic activity determine
The term “vulnerability” is applied in different ways. In this the pressure trends and the multiple use demands on coastal re-
paper we discuss the vulnerability of a specified system to a sources. The “drivers” or “driving forces” lead to pressures on the
specified hazard or range of hazards (Adger et al., 2004). The term environment, with, physical, biological and chemical repercussions.
hazard refers specifically to a physical manifestation of climatic The changes in these conditions usually have environmental and
variability or change such as droughts, floods, storms, episodes of economic impacts on ecosystems such as altered biodiversity or
heavy rainfall, and so on. In this context the vulnerability is reduced resource availability, and ultimately on social and eco-
conceived in terms of the amount of damage caused to a system by nomic features of the society and human health as well. A set of
a particular climate-related event or hazard (Jones and Boer, 2003). appropriated societal and policy makers' prioritizations affecting
The hazards and impact approach typically views the vulnerability any part of the chain between the drivers and the impacts can
of a human system as determined by the nature of the physical reduce undesired impacts (Rogers and Greenaway, 2005;
hazard to which it is exposed, the frequency of occurrence of the Kristensen, 2004; Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003).
hazard, and the system's sensitivity to the impacts of the hazard. In this paper, starting from a recent approach for the Coastal
This vulnerability, as a function of hazard and sensitivity, may be Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) (Benassai et al., 2009, 2013; Di
referred to as physical vulnerability (Brooks, 2003; Nicholls at al., Paola et al., 2011), which is based on wave climate, bathymetry
1999). and sediment data, and evaluating the exposure on the basis of a
Together with vulnerability and hazard, exposure is another simplified DPSIR scheme, we have assessed the risk of inundation
pre-requisite of risk and disaster. Here, exposure is understood as and erosion of a test area for two different hazards: low hazard (1
the number of people and/or other elements at risk that can be year return period) and very high hazard (50 years return period)
affected by a particular event. In an uninhabited area the human wave storm. For the latter case, the response to RSLR was evaluated
exposure is zero, no matter the magnitude of the vulnerability and taking into account the isostatic contribution, ice cap melting due
the hazard (Birkmann, 2007; Thywissen, K., 2006). While the to global warming and vertical land movement in the test area.
vulnerability determines the severity of the impact an event will The risk assessment procedure was applied to the Sele coastal
have on an element at risk, it is the exposure that drives the final plain, which is part of the coastal zone of Salerno province. It in-
tally of damage or harm, and so the final risk (IPCC, 2014). volves numerous properties and important infrastructures, and is
Among the different definitions of risk, in this paper we define very susceptible to marine inundations (Benassai et al., 2013;
the ‘risk’ as the probability of a loss, which depends on three ele- Vallefuoco et al., 2012). This coastal zone presents an intrinsic
ments, that is hazard, vulnerability and exposure. If any of these flooding vulnerability, because it is characterized by spread back-
three elements in risk increases or decreases, then the risk in- ridge depressions, with a mean height of about 0.50e1.50 m a.s.l.
creases or decreases respectively (Crichton, 1999). with a high sensitivity to future relative sea level rise (IPCC, 2014)
So a mitigation strategy for coastal risk can be achieved either by and relative vertical land movements (Vilardo et al., 2009). In fact,
decreasing the vulnerability to flooding, or by decreasing the Pappone et al. (2012), on the basis of stratigraphic and geo-
exposure from flooding or by combining the two (Luo et al., 2013; chronological data, recognize different rates of vertical land
Pompe and Rinehart, 2008). movement for the northern and southern sectors of the Sele coastal
According to the majority of the scientific community, coastal plain. In particular, taking into account borehole stratigraphic data,
vulnerability is defined as the susceptibility of a socio-economic the Authors evidence the following different behavior: the north-
and/or ecological system to be harmed by a hazardous event ern sector shows a mean rate of 0.4 mm/year from 5.0 ky BP to
(Cutter, 1996; Gornitz et al., 1994). Different semi-quantitative and 1.0 ky BP, while the southern one is almost stable. Recently, Vilardo
quantitative procedures for its evaluation have been proposed in et al. (2009), analysing the satellite radar interferometry (PS-InSar)
the literature. The first ones are mainly based on the subjective data, highlighted that this area is also affected by subsidence as
assessment of geomorphological indicators, while the second ones several other Italian coastal plains (Cenni et al., 2013; Teatini et al.,
quantify the relative importance of physical and geomorphological 2012; Baldi et al., 2009). The exposure of this area is also significant,
relevant phenomena. The proposed methodologies have progres- due to concentration of an important inhabited area (city of Sale-
sively evolved from single approaches, such as Bruun rule (Bruun, rno), archaeological sites of UNESCO World Heritage List (ancient
1962) and UNEP methodology (Carter et al., 1994), to more recent town of Poseidonia-Paestum) and important infrastructures
consistent techniques, such as USGS-CVI (Gornitz et al., 1994) and located along the coastline.
SURVAS (Nicholls and de la Vega-Leinert, 2000), which provide an The paper is structured as follows: the morphological and
improved consideration of both physical and nonphysical factors. climatological features, as well as the assessment of the RSLR of the
One of the most commonly used methods for assessing coastal study area are introduced in Section 2. The data and methods used
vulnerability is based on the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), to evaluate the coastal vulnerability, the exposure and the coastal
which combines the changing susceptibility of the coastal system risk are described in Section 3. Experimental results relevant to
with its inherent response to a changing environment. The different hazards and the RSLR are presented and discussed in
vulnerability classification is based upon the relative contributions Section 4. Discussion and Conclusions are finally drawn in Section 5
and interactions of six variables, i.e., mean elevation, geology, and 6.
24 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

2. Study area elevated 1e5 m a.s.l. which is partly exposed along the present
coast and disappears inland under a muddy depression, rising
2.1. Beach morphology about 1 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1B). During the last sixty years, the Sele
coastline was affected by prevailing erosion that was very strong
Sele plain is one of the widest alluvial coastal plains of Southern around the main river mouths, due to numerous hydraulic dams,
Italy, limited towards the sea by a narrow sandy beach which ex- which greatly reduced sediment supply to the rivers (Alberico at al.
tends from NW to SE in the Gulf of Salerno, in the Southern Tyr- 2012a, 2012b; Pappone et al., 2011) as often is the case for many
rhenian Sea (Fig. 1A). This plain is the emerged continental portion other coastal plains along the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic coasts
of a large triangular-shaped morpho-tectonic depression, Salerno (Rosskopf and Scorpio, 2013; Aucelli et al., 2009; Amorosi and Milli,
trough, related to the opening and expansion of the Tyrrhenian 2001; Pranzini, 2001).
ocean basin started in the Upper Miocene (Amato et al., 2013; The different morphological and anthropic features allow to
Casciello et al., 2006; Bartole et al., 1984). A younger coastal distinguish between the more inhabited northern stretches of the
sector occurs between the Tyrrhenian sandy coastal ridge and the coastline, which extend from the river mouth of Picentino to the
present shoreline. This belt represents the evolution of a barrier- river Asa, and the more intact coastal zones, reaching towards the
lagoon system, that shifted alternatively landwards and seawards South and the ancient town of Paestum. Here the area is charac-
during the Holocene. It includes a composite sand ridge system, terized by wider beaches with almost perfectly preserved dunes.

Fig. 1. Study area (A) and topographical profiles with their location on coastal Sele Plain (B, C). The last one also shows the elevation areas under 2 m a.s.l. and under 1 m a.s.l.,
denoted in yellow and red, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 25

The beaches of the northern section are characterized by a strong tidal range of 0.45 m. However, main sea level variations due to
anthropic impact, which is also confirmed by a number of sewage meteorological surges can reach values up to 1 m (IIM, 2002).
outlets protected by concrete structures, and some shore protection The long-term wave climate was extrapolated with the Weibull
structures (small detached longitudinal and adherent breakwaters) distribution. The equation for long term predictions of significant
placed here and there to protect single infrastructures and some- wave heights, with given return periods TR in years, is the
times the coastal road. The beaches of the southern section, instead, following:
are wider and show a lower anthropogenic load, with some ex-
ceptions on the left bank of river Sele, where a more intense impact 1
is observed. At the southward limit of the physiographic unit, Hs;TR ¼ B þ A½lnðlTR Þ =k (1)
marked by the Capodifiume and Solofrone rivers, there are wider
beaches with fine sand and a lower anthropic load. where A, B and k represent the scale, position and shape factors
In order to define a detailed mapping of the emerged and sub- respectively (Sarpkaya and Isaacson, 1981) and l is the mean
merged beach, 10 topographic and bathymetric profiles were pro- number of “over-threshold” (Hs > 3 m) sea storms observed in one
duced (Fig. 1C). The topographic profiles were obtained by using a year, as available from statistical data (APAT, 2006). The spectral
Differential Global Position System survey (DGPS), while the sub- peak period Tp is determined by relevant statistical correlations
merged beach profiles were obtained by means of a single-beam between sea parameters. Table 1 lists the relevant parameters for
during a survey carried out by IAMC-CNR of Naples in 2008 and TR ¼ 1 year and TR ¼ 50 years.
covered the area extending up to the closure depth (Di Paola et al., The inshore wave climate used for risk calculations was ob-
2014). tained through the propagation of some significant wave storms on
the beach profiles. These storms, recorded at Ponza buoy during
winter 2010, are given in Table 2. A numerical wave model (SWAN)
2.2. Offshore and inshore wave climate was used to simulate the wave storms and to propagate them on
the beach profiles. It is a third-generation numerical wave model
Offshore wave climate was obtained through the statistical which describes temporal and spatial variation of wind-induced
analysis of the data provided by the Italian Sea Wave Measure- surface elevation, white-capping effects and friction with the sea
ment Network (Rete Ondametrica Nazionale; RON, 2012) from the bottom layer (Benassai, 2006). In SWAN, waves are described with
Ponza buoy (40
520 00.1000 N, 12
560 60.0000 E), which can be the two-dimensional wave action density spectrum N]F/s, even
considered representative of the offshore wave conditions in the when non-linear phenomena dominate (e.g., in the surf zone). The
study area, according to the Wind and Wave Atlas of the Medi- model is typically forced by using wind field forcing at 1 h intervals
terranean Sea (Medatlas Group, 2004). The period covered by the provided through the Advanced Research Weather Research and
wave data is July 1989eMarch 2008, including a total of 115,651 Forecast (WRF-ARW) wind field ECMWF model data. Outputs from
wave records, or sea states, each one characterized by a value of SWAN model include significant wave height (Hs) on gridded fields,
significant wave height, Hs, mean wave period, Tm, and mean wave associated wave directions (Dm) and mean periods (Tm), as well as
direction, Dm.
The results of the analysis show that the study area is frequently
affected by moderate wave conditions associated to significant Table 1
wave heights lower than 3 m, coming mainly from SSW-NNW Wave height prediction for storm surge with return period of 1 and 50 years.

sector. However, in the winter, stormy conditions are generated, Parameter of Weibull distribution TR ¼ 1 year TR ¼ 50 years
mainly associated to wave fields traveling from subsector WSW- A B k l Hs (m) Tp (s) Hs (m) Tp (s)
WNW (Fig. 2). With regard to astronomical sea level variation,
0.89 3.51 1.00 5.87 5.1 9.8 8.6 12.2
the study area experiences a typical semi-diurnal tide with a mean

Fig. 2. Wave rose (Hs-Dm) for the whole data set (a), for sea states with Hs > 4 m (b).
26 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

Table 2 geomorphological analysis, based on cartographic (1:5.000 in scale)

Recorded wave storms of winter 2010. and photogrammetric interpretation. They identified a differential
Storm n. Duration Hs max (m) Tp max (s) Dm max (
N) TD (h) uplift/subsidence trend into the plain: an uplift of the whole Sele
1 09/11/10e10/11/10 4.23 9.5 218 55
plain during the first part of the Holocene (up to ca. 6.0 ky BP) and a
2 17/12/10e18/12/10 5.01 9.5 231 24 subsequent different behavior in the northern and southern sec-
3 23/12/10e25/12/10 4.29 10.0 255 48 tors. The vertical land movements into the plain seem to continue
until the present days, as evidenced by PS-InSar interpretation
(1992e2001) of Vilardo et al. (2009). Two different values of ver-
wave energy spectral information at different wavelengths tical land movements were considered: 0.82 mm/year for the Dx
(Benassai, 2006; Benassai and Ascione, 2006; Booij et al., 1999). The Sele and þ0.2 mm/year for the Sx Sele plain, for the last 5 ky. The
details of the simulations and the model validation with the buoy sum of the aforementioned parameters gave rise to the RSLR, re-
data are given in Benassai et al., 2013. ported in Table 3.

2.3. Sea level change assessment 3. Methodology of risk assessment

According to Lambeck et al. (2011), the three principal contri- This Section presents the proposed two-step procedure used to
butions to Relative Sea Level Rise (RSLR), measured with respect to evaluate the risk due to coastal erosion and inundation along the
land are (a) the sea level response to the past glacial cycle, including Sele coastal plain, taking into account the RSLR. First, we applied
the response to the most recent glacial unloading of the major ice the Coastal Vulnerability Assessment (CVA), then we evaluated the
sheets, the response to the ocean floor loading by the melt water exposure and consequently the coastal risk of the test area for two
and the glacio-hydro-isostatic contributions, (b) changes in ocean different hazards: low hazard (1 year return period) and very high
volume in more recent times from thermal expansion and (c) ver- hazard (50 years return period) wave storm. For the latter case, the
tical land movements (including uplift and subsidence). response to RSLR was evaluated in the test area with the procedure
The isostatic response requires appropriate models for the past described in section 2.3.
ice sheets, consisting in the inversion of rebound data from the The first step (sub-section 3.1) involves the evaluation of the
formerly glaciated regions, and requires rheological parameters coastal vulnerability on the considered profiles. The second step
that are estimated from the sea level data for sites that are (sub-section 3.2) regards the evaluation of the exposure, calculated
tectonically stable. Lambeck et al. (2011) calculated the value of through the socio-economic value and the damage value. Finally, in
0.44 mm/year for the Sele alluvial plain (Table 3). the sub-section 3.3, the risk assessment is calculated according to
The effects of the future change in oceans volume, caused by the European Union Commission (ISO/IEC, 2009).
global warming and ice melting, has been evaluated by the last IPCC
(2014) report, using the highest and worst sea level rise predictions.
We have adopted the maximum and minimum projections, known 3.1. Coastal vulnerability assessment
as RCP2.6 and RCP8.5, evaluated for the increase of global sea mean
surface temperature of 1
C and 2
C, respectively. For each of the The coastal vulnerability was evaluated, starting from the CVA
scenarios we considered the mean values of 4.6 mm/year and method already proposed by Di Paola et al. (2014) and Benassai
5.8 mm/year (Table 3). These results are in line with those of the et al. (2013), with the inclusion of RSLR in order to examine its
analysis of the Topex-Poseidon satellite altimetry data in the period influence on the beach response. We adopted the RCP8.5 scenario
1993e1998 (Cazenave et al., 2001), which give an average rate of relative to 2065, which was added to the very high hazard of
5e10 mm/year in the western Mediterranean basin. However, more TR ¼ 50 years, summing up the different components described in
recent additional remote sensing data for 1992e2008 period (Vigo section 2.3.
et al., 2011), showed an overall increase of 2.6 cm, which should The CVA methodology starts with the identification of key var-
give a lower increase rate of approximately 2 mm/year for the same iables representing significant driving processes, then it attributes
basin. The Authors acknowledge that this change is not consistent different semi-quantitative scores according to a 1e4 scale; 1 in-
with the accepted global rate of 3.0e3.5 mm/year since 1992 dicates a low contribution to coastal vulnerability of a specific key
(Ablain et al., 2009; Cazenave et al., 2009; Beckley et al., 2007), but variable for the study area or sub-area, while 4 indicates a high
they argue that the Mediterranean Sea is a semi-enclosed basin contribution. Then the key variables are integrated in a single index
which does not respond linearly to the influence of the open ocean. according to the following equation:
The vertical land component of the Sele alluvial plain was
CVA ¼ IRu þ IR þ ID þ E þ T (2)
evaluated by Pappone et al. (2012). The Authors considered a
chrono-stratigraphic study, integrated by a detailed
where IRu is an index related to wave run-up distance on the
shoreline, IR is an index linked to the short-term erosion, ID is the
Table 3 coastal structures stability index, E is the beach erosion rate index
Sea level rise scenarios according to IPCC (2014), using two different projections for and T is the tidal beach response.
the 2065. The values were calculated for the next 51 years (2014e2065). The Coastal Vulnerability Assessment was carried out by eval-
Scenarios Sectors of Sele Glacio- Change in Land RSLR uating equation (2) without considering ID and T contributions. In
(2065) plain hydro- ocean movement fact, the test area (i.e., the southern Tyrrhenian Coastal Sea basin) is
isostasy volume a micro-tidal coastal environment with a max tidal excursion of
mm/ mm mm/ mm mm/ mm Mm 0.45 m (IIM, 2002) (hence, T ¼ 0), where no coastal protection is
year year year present (hence, ID ¼ 0). Therefore, only IRu, IR, and E contributions
RCP2.6 Dx Sele 0.44 21.9 4.6 240 0.82 41.8 303.7 have been taken into account for the evaluation of Coastal
Sx Sele 0.44 21.9 4.6 240 0.2 10.2 251.7 Vulnerability Assessment.
RCP8.5 Dx Sele 0.44 21.9 5.8 300 0.82 41.8 363.7 For each index, the relative score was assigned to ranks 1, 2, 3
Sx Sele 0.44 21.9 5.8 300 0.2 10.2 311.7
and 4 from very low to high. The resulting index CVA was obtained
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 27

by the simple addition of the single indices, according to EUROSION

project (EUROSION, 2004). Rb
IRSLR ¼ $100 (4)
The Wave run-up height index (IRu) provides a measurement of L
the potential inundation capacity, which characterizes natural
where Rb is shoreline retreat trough Davidson-Arnott (2005) for-
beaches with respect to wave storms, through the evaluation of the
mula and L is the beach width.
horizontal distance traveled by the wave in the run-up process
Consistently, we have introduced a new Coastal Vulnerability
(Xmax), that is the run-up level divided by foreshore beach slope
Assessment index, given by:
(Stockdon et al., 2006). IRu values for inundation rate of the natural
beach were customarily clustered into four discrete levels i.e. stable CVARSLR ¼ CVA þ IRSLR (5)
(IRu ¼ 1), low (IRu ¼ 2), moderate (IRu ¼ 3) and high (IRu ¼ 4)
(Table 4). Also IRSLR values were customarily clustered into four discrete
The Short-term erosion index (IR) provides a measurement of the levels i.e., stable (IRSLR ¼ 1), low (IRSLR ¼ 2), moderate (IRSLR ¼ 3) and
maximum beach retreat (Rmax) calculated with Kriebel and Dean high (IRSLR ¼ 4) (Table 4).
(1993) convolution method and normalized with the beach with The CVARSLR index was evaluated according to equation (5). The
L. IR values for short-term erosion of natural beach were custom- CVA and CVARSLR consequently obtained were clustered into the
arily clustered into four discrete levels i.e., stable (IR ¼ 1), low four categories already introduced (Table 4).
(IR ¼ 2), moderate (IR ¼ 3) and high (IR ¼ 4) (Table 4).
In order to compute the beach erosion rate index (E), which 3.2. Coastal exposure
provides the evaluation of historical shoreline change, a number of
topographic maps, aerial photographs and multi-spectral satellite The method proposed in this paper aims at representing the
images were used to demarcate shoreline positions in different socio-economic pressure factors as well as the exposed value of the
periods. The image distortion in the aerial photographs due to tilt assets located in the coastal area. It is based on a simplified Driving
and pitch of aircraft, and the scale variations caused by changes in forces e Pressure e State e Impact e Responses model (DPSIR) as
altitude along the flight lines were corrected by Z-Map (MENCI™) recommended by the European Environmental Agency and already
software. The error related to orthorectification was controlled used by EUROSION (2004). The concept of Radius of Influence of
through the root mean square error (RMSE), which was ±3 m. The Coastal Erosion (RICE) is introduced as the total area within 500 m
historical maps were georeferenced using a number of Ground from the shoreline and lying below 5 m above sea level. Once the
Control Points (GCPs), which were extracted by comparing each RICE has been defined, the approach considers a number of in-
historical map with the 1998 georeferenced Campania technical dicators, which are based on the population density and on the
map with 1:5000 scale. Moreover, because it was not possible to coastal land use. In the following, the socio-economic value (per-
reconstruct tidal conditions at the time of the photo shot, it was centage of loss of an element or a group of elements that should
assumed that the daily water line position was subject to a occur in case of hazard) and the exposed value (quantification of
maximum uncertainty of ±1.6 m, taking into account the daily the receptors that can be influenced by the hazard) are developed
mean sea-level change of ±20 cm (ISPRA, 2013) and the mean in detail.
intertidal slope of 12% calculated on the beach profiles.
The beach erosion rate index was customarily clustered into
3.2.1. Socio-economic value
discrete levels depending on the erosion rate velocity E (m yr1),
Based on EUROSION (2004) and FLOODsite (2004), the socio-
i.e., stable (E ¼ 1), low (E ¼ 2), moderate (E ¼ 3) and high (E ¼ 4)
economic value (S) was evaluated using the coastal socio-
(Table 4).
economic value index (CSI), which depends on the land use char-
In order to take into account the RSLR for the vulnerability
acteristics and the total population of the municipalities included in
calculation, we used the RCP8.5 projection in the Davidson-Arnott
the test area. The land use data were obtained by maps realized by
(2005) flooding method to estimate the potential coastal retreat for
Campania Region in 2009 (CUAS, 2009) while the statistical data
2065. This model assumes that the shoreline displacement is
were obtained through the last ISTAT dataset (ISTAT, 2011). More-
related to the beach slope (tan b) as follows:
over, the ISTAT (2001) dataset was also used as a comparison with
ISTAT (2011) dataset in order to evaluate the increase of inhabited
areas.
1 CSI is given by the following equation:
Rb ¼ S$ (3)
tan b
CSI ¼ PRICE þ URICE þ ERICE þ U10km (6)
where Rb is the shoreline retreat, S is the RSLR and b the slope of the
profile between the dune ridge and the closure depth. So, for each where PRICE is the resident population in the RICE area, URICE is the
profile a beach response index due to RSLR (IRSLR) was introduced percentage of urbanized/industrialized area in RICE, ERICE the per-
as: centage of ecological value area in RICE, while U10km is the per-
centage of the increased urbanized area inside RICE.
The resident population in RICE (PRICE) was calculated from the
Table 4
Classification of IR, IRu, E, IRSLS and CVA ranking.
formula:

Variables Stability Low Moderate High PRICE ¼ DU $AURICE þ DR $ARRICE þ DN $ANRICE (7)
1 2 3 4
where AURICE, ARRICE and ANRICE denote the urban, rural and natural
IR (%) 15 16e30 31e50 >50
IRu (%) 40 41e60 61e80 >80 area in RICE, DU, DR and DN are the demographic density for ur-
E (m/year) 0.5 0.6e1.0 1.1e2.0 >2.0 banized, rural and natural areas. The urban, rural and natural areas
CVA (%) ≤30 31e50 51e70 >70 were evaluated by the land use classification reported in CUAS
IRSLR (%) 25 26e50 51e75 >75 (2009), while the demographic densities for each area were ob-
CVARSLR (%) ≤30 31e50 51e70 >70
tained by EUROSION (2004) estimates, further modified by ISPRA
28 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

(2009). In particular, these densities were obtained as a portion to Table 6

the total municipality population, according to the following Ranking of socio-economic value (S) used to evaluate CSI.

equations: CSI
2 3e5 6e8 9
DU ¼ 0:7485 Pop=AU ; DR ¼ 0:217 Pop=AR ; DN S S1 S2 S3 S4

¼ 0:035 Pop=AN ;

in which AU, AR and AN represent the urbanized, rural and natural D2 (medium damage) for spread houses, rural areas, touristic
facilities and dune ridge;
areas, while Pop is the municipality population, extracted by the
ISTAT (2011) dataset. D1 (low damage) for natural (unprotected) areas.
The urbanized/industrialized index (URICE) and the ecological
value index (ERICE) are the urban and ecological areas in RICE in
percentage to the total RICE area, while the U10km index is the in- 3.2.3. Exposure levels
cremental percentage of urban/industrial area within 10 km of the The coastal exposure (Ex) denotes the percentage of the loss of
coastline during the decade 2001e2011 (ISTAT, 2011, 2001). an element or a group of elements that could occur in case of
Table 5 shows the scores assumed for each parameter, which hazard. This parameter is evaluated by the matrix shown in Table 7.
were customized in a classification slightly different from In particular the following scores were considered:
EUROSION (2004), as done by Martinelli et al. (2010).
Based on the scores reached by PRICE, URICE, ERICE, U10km, and Ex4 (very high exposure): potential human loss and high eco-
according to eq. (6), the CSI values were obtained, so the corre- nomic loss or damage;
sponding socio-economic values (S) were evaluated and reported Ex3 (high exposure): possible human losses and economic
in Table 6. In detail S4 denotes a very high socio-economic value, S3 issues;
a high socio-economic value, S2 a medium socio-economic value Ex2 (medium exposure): minor human loss threats and lower
and S1 a low socio-economic value. economic losses;
Ex1 (low exposure): no human loss danger and/or negligible
damage.
3.2.2. Potential damage levels
The potential damage of the assets located in the coastal area
These different levels have been obtained as a matrix product of
depends on the type of asset, and on the method used to determine
socio-economic value by the damage level as shown in Table 7.
the asset value. Some examples of valuation methods include the
present value, replacement cost, damages avoided and output
value. For example, the value of a beachside park can be related to 3.3. Coastal risk levels
the replacement costs; likewise, there are a range of other values in
addition to the monetary value including the social, health and The European Union Commission (ISO/EC, 2009) defines the risk
lifestyle values offered through the provision of a coastal as “the probability of harmful consequences, or expected losses
infrastructure. (deaths, injuries to property, livelihoods, disruption to economic
In this view, the potential damage (D) represents the social, activities or environment), resulting from interaction between
economic and natural value of the assets located in the coastal area vulnerability and exposure”. Therefore, the risk can be obtained
in terms of monetary costs or human lives. In order to evaluate through the following definition:
these costs it is necessary to take into account the monetary,
R ¼ V$Ex ¼ V$ðS$DÞ (8)
environmental, cultural and archaeological values in the study area.
In order to classify the assets located in the coastal area, the latter
where V is the coastal vulnerability (susceptibility of a coastal area
was divided into in 13 zones (Z), according to the municipality
to be affected by either inundation and/or erosion), Ex is the
borders and to buildings, infrastructures and natural areas extrac-
exposure described in section 2.1, S is the socio-economic value
ted from the 2004 orthophoto and from the 1998 Campania tech-
(percentage of loss of an element or a group of elements that should
nical map.
occur in case of hazard), and D is the potential damage (concerning
The following damage levels have been considered:
the monetary, human life and environmental values in the coastal
area).
D4 (very high damage) for groups of inhabited houses with
The risk level (R) was evaluated by eq. (7), given by the matrix
roads and permanent infrastructures (urbanized areas);
product indicated in Table 8, which determines the risk level
D3 (high damage) for localized inhabited houses, special zones
through the product of the coastal vulnerability by the exposure. In
of conservation and protection, national heritage protection
particular, the risk level has been classified as follows:
areas and public interest buildings;
R4 (very high risk): high danger for human life and/or perma-
Table 5 nent loss of structures or social and financial activities;
Classification and ranking of PRICE, URICE, ERICE and U10km used for CSI evaluation.

Indicator 0 1 2 3 4 Table 7
PRICE (Population living in RICE) <500 500 1500 3000 >10,000 Coastal exposure (Ex) evaluation, given by the product matrix of socio economic
e1500 e3000 e1000 value index (S) by potential damage level (D).
URICE (Ext. of urban areas in RICE) <10% 10 20e40% 40e60% >60%
S4 S3 S2 S1
e20%
ERICE (Ext. of areas of high ecological <5% 5e20% 20e30% >30 e D4 Ex4 Ex3 Ex2 E x1
value in RICE) D3 Ex3 Ex2 Ex1 E x1
U10km (Urban increase % in 10 km 5% 5e10% 10e20% >20% e D2 Ex2 Ex1 Ex1 E x1
radius coastline) D1 Ex1 Ex1 Ex1 E x1
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 29

Table 8
Risk level (R) evaluation, by matrix product of coastal vulnerability (V) by exposure
(Ex).

R3 (high risk): significant damage to the population and/or loss

of structures and buildings;
R2 (medium risk): only loss to the residential properties and to
the infrastructures;
R1 (low risk): possible, but low social, financial and economic
damages.

4. Experimental results
Fig. 3. Partial contributions of IR, IRu and E to the CVA index for TR ¼ 1year (A) and
4.1. Coastal vulnerability evaluation TR ¼ 50 years (B).

The Coastal Vulnerability Assessment has been calculated with

reference to a low and high level hazard, that is, a storm with 1 year
and 50 years return period, in the latter case with the additional
beach response to the RSLR. The following results can be
highlighted.

 CVALH, refers to low hazard (wave storm with TR ¼ 1 year) and

shows that the beach profile P9 is the only one with a low
vulnerability level (V1). The beach profiles P8eP10, P1eP2eP5
and P3eP4eP6eP7 have a medium (V2), high (V3), and very
high (V4) vulnerability level, respectively (Fig. 3A).
 CVAHH, refers to high hazard (wave storm with TR ¼ 50 years),
and shows that the beach profile P9 changes its vulnerability
level from low (V1) to medium (V2). The profiles P8 and P10
change their vulnerability from medium (V2) to high (V3), the
profiles P2 and P5 from high (V3) to very high (V4), while the
profiles P1, P3, P4, P6 and P7 leave their vulnerability levels
unchanged. (Fig. 3B).
 CVARSLR, refers to high hazard with the inclusion of RSLR, and
was calculated through the estimate of the beach retreat (Rb)
associated to RCP8.5-2065 projections (see section 2.3). This
parameter is reported in Fig. 4A, while the non-dimensional
values are given in Fig. 4B. The examination of Fig. 4 shows
that several transects are exposed to RSLR, particularly the P7
profile, where the beach retreat for the scenario RPC8.5 is
greater than the present beach width, while a lower impact is
noted for the southern part of the test area (P8, P9 and P10
profiles).

The comparison between Coastal Vulnerability Assessment

relative to different hazard levels shows that the rise in the hazard
level increases the vulnerability score of only half of the profiles,
because the central profiles have already reached a very high
vulnerability level (V4). The comparison between CVAHH (Fig. 4B)
and CVARSLR (Fig. 5) shows that RSLR raises the vulnerability level
from V3 to V4 only for profile P1, while the rest of the profiles leave Fig. 4. Calculated value of beach retreat (Rb) associated with RCP8.5 projections in
their vulnerability unchanged. comparison with the present beach width (A); corresponding values of IRSLR (B).
30 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

4.2. Exposure evaluation

According to Table 5, the exposure (Ex) is given as the socio-

economic value (S) multiplied by the potential damage (D). The
socio-economic value (S) was evaluated on the basis of the CSI
values as reported in Table 6.
Based on the statistical information of the socio-economic pa-
rameters for CSI, and on the land use CUAS (2009) classification, a
schematic representation of main land uses was obtained and given
for each municipality in the pie charts of Fig. 6.
In Table 9 the calculations of PRICE, URICE, ERICE and U10km were
reported in detail and classified according to the ranking given in
Fig. 5. Calculated values of CVA, with the comparison between IRSLR and the other
Table 5. The highest values PRICE and URICE were obtained for the
vulnerability parameters. Salerno municipality because it is the most inhabited town in the
Sele plain (over 20,000 people), which exhibits a very high ur-
banized percentage URICE (91.5%). Moreover, the higher ERICE values
for Eboli and Capaccio were obtained because they are included in
protected areas. Finally, U10km resulted to be higher for Salerno and
Eboli, very low for Battipaglia and almost absent for Capaccio.

Fig. 6. Coastal potential damage map with land use results for each municipality on the Sele plain.
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 31

Table 9
Evaluation of PRICE, URICE, ERICE and U10km for each municipality of Sele plain. Moreover, the resulting CSI index and socio-economic value S are reported.

Municipality PRICE URICE ERICE U10km

Pop Index % Index % Index % Index CSI S

Salerno 26,425 4 91.5 4 0.0 0 21.7 3 11 S4

Pontecagnano 3555 3 30.4 2 0.0 0 17.7 2 7 S3
Battipaglia 2313 2 30.2 2 0.0 0 5.2 1 5 S2
Eboli 1969 2 16.8 1 72.0 3 26.7 3 9 S3
Capaccio 3362 3 31.0 2 44.3 3 1.2 0 8 S3

The potential damage (D) was evaluated based on the sub- 4.4. Risk validation through damage detection
section 3.2.2, in which the highest damage is for inhabited and
protected areas, the lowest for uncultivated areas. This is the reason The obtained risk levels were validated through a visual damage
why the highest value of D was obtained for Z1, Z2, Z11 and Z12 assessment for each coastal zone included in the considered area.
zones, of which the first two are associated to a very crowded area, The flood damage on each part of the coastal stretch was
while the other two are associated to archaeological and protected detected on the basis of information taken from different sources,
zones. The rest of the areas have a medium damage, while Z5 and Z6 like newspapers and TV reports, validated with field surveys. This is
zones, associated to an uncultivated area, have a low damage level a common practice when localized damages are concerned,
(Fig. 6). otherwise a comparison between remote sensing images before
The exposure (Ex) has been obtained with the matrix product of and after the flooding event is needed.
S multiplied by D, therefore the highest Ex values are associated to In this paper we classified the Observed Damage (OD) on the
Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 zones, which are characterized by simultaneous basis of the structures involved. In particular, we established the
high values of S and D (for anthropic and/or environmental rea- following four rankings:
sons). The central part of the coastal area, corresponding to Z3, Z7,
Z8, Z9, Z10 and to the last area Z13, is associated to a medium level of OD4 (very high observed damage): buildings and
exposure Ex2. Finally, the rural and less inhabited coastal stretches infrastructures;
corresponding to profiles Z4, Z5 and Z6 are associated to a low OD3 (high observed damage): touristic facilities, dune ridges,
exposure Ex1 (Fig. 6). cultural heritage;
OD2 (medium observed damage): natural zones, cultivated
areas;
OD1 (low observed damage): not significantly damaged areas.
4.3. Risk evaluation
The different observed damages are reported in the photographs
Based on the assumed ranking for the different scores of coastal of Fig. 8, together with their ranking. In particular, the observed
vulnerability (V) obtained by the CVA method (Figs. 4A and 6), and damage in Z1 and Z2 zones (Fig. 8A and B) is relevant to building and
based on the exposure (Ex) ranking given in Fig. 6, we obtained the infrastructures (OD4), the observed damage in Z4 and Z5 zones is
coastal risk results given in Fig. 7A and B, for a low (TR ¼ 1 year) and absent (Fig. 8C), while the zones Z8 and Z9 (Fig. 8D and E) are
high (TR ¼ 50 years) hazard coupled also with RSLR related to 2065. characterized by damages to the dune ridges and to some touristic
Being the risk given by the matrix product of the coastal facilities (OD3). Finally, the zones Z12 and Z13 are characterized by
vulnerability for the exposure, it assumes the highest values only an almost intact dune ridge with no significant damage (Fig. 8F and
when both factors are highest. This is not the case for the low G). The comparison between the risk level and the observed
hazard (storm associated with TR ¼ 1 year), because the highest damage for each zone shows that the highest risk values (R3 and
vulnerability values V4 are coupled with low Ex1 and Ex2 exposure R4) are given only for Z1 and Z2 zones, where a maximum exposure
values (Z4, Z5, Z6, Z8, Z9 and Z10 zones), while the highest exposure value (due to highly inhabited area) is coupled with a very high
Ex4 is coupled with V3 value only in Z1 zone. However, for the high vulnerability V4. This high risk level is validated by a high observed
hazard with TR ¼ 50 years, the maximum risk level R4 is reached (in damage level OD4. In the central stretches of the coastline, the risk
Z1 zone, followed by R3 in Z2 zone), because the highest Ex4 level decreases towards a medium-low level, which is validated by
exposure value is associated with V4 and V3 vulnerability levels. few observed damages. The damages were experienced instead in
The examination of Fig. 7A shows that the risk is maximum for Z8 and Z9 zones (Sele mouth), where the higher risk is validated
Salerno municipality (Z1), lower in Pontecagnano, Battipaglia and through a high observed damage level ranking OD3. In the southern
Eboli (from Z2 to Z7), then it slightly increases closer to the part of the coastline, the lower risk ranking is validated by a low
boundary of Capaccio municipality (Sele mouth e Z8) and decreases observed damage level OD1.
again for the rest of the coastal areas.
The comparison between Fig. 7A and B shows that the increase
in hazard in most cases raises the risk level by one score (Z1, Z2, Z3, 5. Discussion
Z8, Z11, Z12 and Z13) except in Z4, Z5 and Z6 zones where the
vulnerability is already at a maximum (V4). The present Coastal Risk Assessment method (CRA) was based
In particular, the low risk ranking relevant to Z3 zone increases on the previous Coastal Vulnerability Assessment Method (CVA)
to medium due to the increase of the vulnerability, which rises from through the evaluation of the exposure, given by the product of the
V3 to V4. The low risk ranking relevant to Z7 and Z11 zones increases socio-economic value S and the potential damage value D.
to medium due to the increase in vulnerability levels, which rises In order to lower the subjectivity of the method, we avoided to
from V3 to V4. The low risk level is unchanged in Z4, Z5, Z6, Z12 and introduce indices based upon a weighted average, because the
Z13, because the limited or absent vulnerability increase is coupled weights reflect the importance of each factor to the final decision,
with a low or medium exposure. which often requires subjective assessment. Rather we chose to
32 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

Fig. 7. Coastal risk map of Sele plain with reference to TR ¼ 1 year (A) and TR ¼ 50 years (B).

obtain a vulnerability and risk index that summed up the scores of increase in vulnerability due to RSLR has a corresponding increase
each index, thus leaving the subjectivity only to the mechanism of in risk level in the northern profile P1, where the sea level rise effect
the matrix product, which is straightforward. is amplified by subsidence. When the RSLR is further increased, the
In order to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the pro- risk level for P9 profile would further increase from R1 to R2. As a
posed methodology, a sensitivity analysis of the Coastal Vulnera- matter of fact, the rest of the profiles should maintain their
bility Assessment to the examined hazard level and to the RSLR vulnerability levels, being already maximum, and therefore should
projections was performed, together with the CRA validation in also maintain their risk level.
most zones based on the comparison between the risk level and the The results of the coastal risk assessment need a proper cali-
observed damage ranking. bration, otherwise significant differences may occur between the
The Coastal Vulnerability Assessment sensitivity to the haz- risk levels and the real damages which occurred on the different
ard level is given by the comparison between the results relative coastline stretches. The lack of calibration may lead also to signif-
to a low (TR ¼ 1 year) and high (TR ¼ 50 years) hazard level icant differences between the results of similar approaches on the
(Fig. 7A and B). It shows that half of the profiles increase their same coastal stretch.
vulnerability score, while the rest of the profiles (mainly the As an example, Martinelli et al. (2010) obtained coastal risk
ones of the central part of the coastal stretch) do not exhibit an maps for Emilia Romagna, using the same slightly modified EUro-
increase. sion approach and another similar approach based on multiple
The Coastal Vulnerability Assessment sensitivity to RSLR is regression analysis (EUROSION, 2004). They obtained the risk
lower than that to the hazard level, in fact the inclusion of RSLR in ranking in the same way, summing up the different indices and
the high hazard raises the vulnerability level from V3 to V4 only in assuming four risk levels (low, moderate, high and very high) ac-
profile P1. The increase in RSLR projections would certainly in- cording to the categories: R1 < 10, 10 < R2 < 20, 20 < R3 < 30,
crease the CVAHHRSLR for P9 profile, while the V3 score for profiles R4 > 30. The results obtained were compared with the ones ach-
P8 and P10 would remain unchanged. ieved with the multiple regression analysis, with significant dif-
The Coastal Risk Assessment sensitivity to RSLR is given as a ferences in the low and high risk areas. These discrepancies were
consequence of the Coastal Vulnerability Assessment analysis. The explained with the need of a proper calibration.
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 33

Fig. 8. Coastal observed damages classification in comparison of the coastal risk map (TR ¼ 50 years).

In order to calibrate our risk level results, we compared the permanent damage was observed, thus validating a lower risk
different risk ranking with the observed damage ranking in most score (OD1).
coastal zones. The project of the defense system for the Sele coastal plain,
The risk ranking on Z1 and Z2 zones (Salerno and Pontecagnano implemented by the Province of Salerno for a total cost of more
municipalities) was validated by observed damages to buildings than 40 million Euro, is in line with the present risk evaluation
and to the coastal road (OD4), while the Z3, Z4, Z5 and Z6 zones results. As a matter of facts, the project philosophy is different for
were not significantly affected by coastal damages. The calculated the northern and southern part of the littoral stretch.
risk level of the Z8 and Z9 zones was validated through the In the northern littoral portion, which coincides with the mu-
observed damage to touristic facilities of a holiday beach resort nicipality of Pontecagnano, extending for a total length of about
and to the dune ridge (OD3). For the southern zones, no significant 4.0 km, the project consisted in the realization of a cell defense
34 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35

system, made of partially submerged groins connected offshore by Baldi, P., Casula, G., Cenni, N., Loddo, F., Pesci, A., 2009. GPS-based monitoring of
land subsidence in the Po Plain (Northern Italy). Earth. Planet. S. C. Lett. 288,
submerged longitudinal breakwaters for the entire coastal length.
204e212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.09.023.
In the stretch of coastline located southern of the Sele river Bartole, R., Savelli, D., Tramontana, M., Wezel, F.C., 1984. Structural and sedimentary
mouth the coastal defense works have been reduced as much as features in the Tyrrhenian margin off Campania, Southern Italy. Mar. Geol. 55,
possible due to the relative stability of this stretch of shoreline. The 163e180.
Bates, P.D., Dawson, R.J., Hall, J.W., Horritt, M.S., Nicholls, R.J., Wicks, J.,
littoral, however, is of high environmental and archaeological value, Hassan, M.A.M., 2005. Simplified two-dimensional numerical modeling of
so the project consisted in a vast monitoring program with some coastal flooding and example applications. Coast. Eng. 52, 793e810.
localized nourishment interventions, particularly at the Sele river Beckley, B.D., Lemoine, F.G., Luthcke, S.B., Ray, R.D., Zelensky, N.P., 2007.
A reassessment of global rise and regional mean sea level trends from TOPEX
mouth, which is in localized erosion due to scarcity of river and Jason-1 altimetry based on revised reference frame and orbits. Geophys.
sediments. Res. Lett. 34, L14608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030002.
Benassai, G., 2006. Introduction to Coastal Dynamics and Shoreline Protection, first
ed. Wit Press, Southampton.
6. Conclusions Benassai, G., Ascione, I., 2006. Implementation and validation of wave watch III
model offshore the coastlines of Southern Italy. In: OMAE, vol. 2006e92555,
In this paper, an index-based coastal risk assessment was per- pp. 1e8.
Benassai, G., Chirico, F., Corsini, S., 2009. Una metodologia per la definizione del
formed on a micro-tidal alluvial plain taking into account the RSLR. rischio da inondazione costiera. Studi Costieri 16, 51e72.
The Coastal Risk Assessment (CRA) was evaluated on the basis of Benassai, G., Montuori, A., Migliaccio, M., Nunziata, F., 2013. Sea wave modeling
the vulnerability calculation with the Coastal Vulnerability with X-band COSMO-SkyMed© SAR-derived wind field forcing. Ocean. Sci. 9,
325e341. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/os-9-325-2013.
Assessment (CVA) method and on the coastal potential damage
Birkmann, J., 2007. Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: towards Disaster
evaluation through land use maps and statistical information on Resilient Societies. United Nations University, Tokyo.
the population density. Booij, N., Ris, R.C., Holthuijsen, L.H., 1999. A third-generation wave model for coastal
regions 1: model description and validation. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 7649e7666.
The CVA sensitivity analysis shows that the results are more
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/98JC02622.
influenced by the hazard level than the RSLR inclusion. In fact, the Brooks, N., 2003. Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: a Conceptual Framework.
RSLR increases the coastal vulnerability mainly for the northern Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 38.
profiles, where the sea level rise effect is amplified by the subsi- Bruun, P., 1962. Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion. J. Waterw. Harbours Div.
88, 117e130.
dence, while the hazard level increases the vulnerability of both the Carter, T.R., Parry, M.L., Nishioka, S., Harasawa, H., 1994. Technical Guidelines for
northern and central southern profiles. The validation of the CRA Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation. University College London,
method is satisfactory because most of the zones classified with a London, and Centre for Global Environmental Research, Tskuba.
Casciello, E., Cesarano, M., Pappone, G., 2006. Extensional detachment faulting on
moderate/high risk are also classified with a high/very high the Tyrrhenian margin of the southern Apennines contractional belt (Italy).
observed damage ranking. The northern high density urban areas J. Geol. Soc. London 163, 617e629.
are characterized by the highest risk, followed by some central Cazenave, A., Cabanes, C., Dominh, K., Mangiarotti, S., 2001. Recent sea level change
in the Mediterranean Sea revealed by satellite altimetry. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28,
areas with strong localized erosive focus. On the contrary, the 1607e1610.
southern zones, with wider beaches and almost intact dunes, are Cazenave, A., Dominha, K., Guinehutb, S., Berthiera, E., Llovela, W., Ramilliena, G.,
characterized by the lowest risk level. Ablainb, M., Larnicol, G., 2009. Sea level budget over 2003e2008: a revaluation
from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Glob. Planet. Change
These results suggested the development of a defense system
65, 83e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004.
for the entire coastal plain, with different levels of interventions Cenni, N., Viti, M., Baldia, P., Mantovanib, E., Bacchettia, M., Vannucchi, A., 2013.
according to the risk levels. The northern coastal stretch is going to Present vertical movements in Central and Northern Italy from GPS data:
possible role of natural and anthropogenic causes. J. Geodyn. 71, 74e85.
be protected with a series of submerged T-shaped and longitudinal
Cooper, M.J., Beevers, M.D., Oppenheimer, M., 2008. The potential impact of sea
breakwaters, while the southern coastal stretch is going to be level rise on the coastal region of New Jersey, USA. Clim. Change 90, 475e492.
interested by nourishment interventions, to be gradually realized Crichton, D., 1999. The risk triangle. In: Ingleton, J. (Ed.), Natural Disaster Man-
with a monitoring program. agement. Tudor Rose, London.
CUAS, 2009. Carta dell'Utilizzazione Agricola del Suolo e Regione Campania. www.
agricoltura.regione.campania.it (accessed 07.03.14.).
References Cutter, S.L., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog. Hum. Geog 20,
529e539.
Ablain, M., Cazenave, A., Guinehut, S., Valladeau, G., 2009. A new assessment of Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D., 2005. A conceptual model of the effects of sea level rise on
global mean sea level from altimeters highlights a reduction of global slope sandy coasts. J. Coast. Res. 21, 1166e1172.
from 2005 to 2008 in agreement with in-situ measurements. Ocean Sci. 5, Di Paola, G., Iglesias, J., Rodríguez, G., Benassai, G., Aucelli, P.P.C., Pappone, G., 2011.
193e201. Estimating coastal vulnerability in a meso-tidal beach by means of quantitative
Adger, W.N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S., Eriksen, S., 2004. New Indicators of and semi-quantitative methodologies. J. Coast. Res. SI61, 303e308. http://
Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Tyndall Centre Technical Report 7. dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI61-001.30.
Alberico, I., Amato, V., Aucelli, P.P.C., D'Argenio, B., Di Paola, G., Pappone, G., 2012a. Di Paola, G., Aucelli, P.P.C., Benassai, G., Rodríguez, G., 2014. Coastal vulnerability to
Historical shoreline evolution and recent shoreline trends of Sele Plain coastline wave storms of Sele littoral plain (southern Italy). Nat. Hazards 71, 1795e1819.
(southern Italy). The 1870e2009 time window. J. Coast. Res. 28, 1638e1647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0980-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00197.1. EUROSION, 2004. Living with Coastal Erosion in Europe: Sediment and Space for
Alberico, I., Amato, V., Aucelli, P.P.C., Di Paola, G., Pappone, G., Rosskopf, C.M., 2012b. Sustainability. www.eurosion.org (accessed 07.03.14.).
Historical and recent changes of the Sele River coastal plain (Southern Italy): FLOODsite, 2004. Evaluating Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies,
natural variations and human pressures. Rend. Lincei-Sci. Fis. 23, 3e12. http:// Language of Risk. Report: T32-04-01.
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-011-0156-y. Gabrielsen, P., Bosch, P., 2003. Internal Working Paper Environmental Indicators:
Amato, V., Aucelli, P.P.C., Ciampo, G., Cinque, A., Di Donato, V., Pappone, G., Typology and Use in Reporting. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Petrosino, P., Romano, P., Rosskopf, C.M., Russo Ermolli, E., 2013. Relative sea Gornitz, V.M., Daniels, R.C., White, T.M., Birdwell, K.R., 1994. The development of a
level changes and paleogeographical evolution of the southern Sele plain (Italy) coastal risk database for the U.S. Southeast: erosion and inundation form sea
during the Holocene. Quatern. Int. 288, 112e128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ level rise. J. Coast. Res. (SI12), 327e338.
j.quaint.2012.02.003. Gornitz, V.M., Beaty, T.W., Daniels, R.C., 1997. A Coastal Hazards Data Base for the
Amorosi, A., Milli, S., 2001. Late Quaternary depositional architecture of Po and U.S. West Coast. ORNL/CDIAC-81, NDP-043C. Oak ridge national laboratory, Oak
Tevere river deltas (Italy) and worldwide comparison with coeval deltaic suc- ridge, Tennessee.
cessions. Sediment. Geol. 144, 357e375. Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C., Jevrejeva, S., 2010. Reconstructing sea level from paleo and
APAT, 2006. Atlante Delle Onde Nei Mari Italiani. Universit
a degli Studi di Roma Tre, projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Clim. Dynam. 34, 461e472.
Roma. Hansen, J.E., Sato, M., 2012. Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate
 
change. In: Berger, A., Mesinger, F., Sija cki, D. (Eds.), Climate Change: Inferences
Aucelli, P.P.C., Iannantuono, E., Rosskopf, C.M., 2009. Evoluzione recente e rischio di
erosione della costa molisana (Italia meridionale). Ital. J. Geosci. (B. Soc. Geol. from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects. Springer, pp. 21e48. http://dx.doi.org/
Ital.) 128, 759e771. 10.1007/978-3-7091-0973-1_2.
 G. Benassai et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 104 (2015) 22e35 35

IIM, 2002. Tidal Data Base. Istituto Idrografico della Marina, Genova. Pappone, G., Aucelli, P.P.C., Alberico, I., Amato, V., Antonioli, F., Cesarano, M., Di
IPCC, 2014. Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) e Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Paola, G., Pelosi, N., 2012. Relative sea-level rise and marine erosion and
Climate Change e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. www.ipcc.ch inundation in the Sele river coastal plain (Southern Italy): scenarios for the next
(accessed 07.05.14.). century. Rend. Lincei-Sci. Fis. 23, 121e129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-
ISO/IEC, 2009. ISO Guide 73 e Risk Management e Vocabulary. http://www.iso.org 012-0166-4.
(accessed 07.03.14.). Pfeffer, W., Harper, J., O'Neel, S., 2008. Kinematic constraints on glacier contribu-
ISPRA, 2009. La definizione del rischi costiero. http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/ tions to 21st-century sea- level rise. Science 321, 1340e1343. http://dx.doi.org/
contentfiles/00002900/2970-chirico.zip/at_download/file (accessed 07.03.14.). 10.1126/science.1159099.
ISPRA, 2013. Data Analysis. http://www.idromare.it/analisi_dati.php (accessed Pompe, J.J., Rinchart, J.R., 2008. Mitigating damage costs from hurricane strikes
10.09.13.). along the southern-eastern US Coast: a role for insurance markets. Ocean Coast.
ISTAT, 2001. Basi territoriali e variabili censuarie: censimenti 2001. 15eCampania. Manage 51, 782e788.
http://www.istat.it/it/files/2013/11/R15_01_WGS84.zip (accessed 07.03.14.). Pranzini, E., 2001. Updrift river mouth migration on cuspate deltas: two examples
ISTAT, 2011. Basi territoriali e variabili censuarie: censimento 2011. 15eCampania. from the coast of Tuscany (Italy). Geomorphology 38, 125e132.
http://www.istat.it/it/files/2013/11/R15_11_WGS84.zip (accessed 07.03.14.). Purvis, M.J., Bates, P.D., Hayes, C.M., 2008. A probabilistic methodology to estimate
Jones, R., Boer, R., 2003. Assessing Current Climate Risks. United Nations Develop- future coastal flood risk due to sea level rise. Coast. Eng 55, 1062e1073.
ment Programmed, New York. http://www.undp.org/cc/pdf/APF/TP%20final/ Rahmstorf, S., 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise.
Tech.Paper_4.qxp_30Aug04.pdf (accessed 07.08.14.). Science 315, 368e370.
Karim, M.F., Mimura, N., 2008. Impacts of climate change and sea level rise on Ramieri, E., Hartley, A., Barbanti, A., Duarte Santos, F., Gomes, A., Hilden, M.,
cyclonic storm surge floods in Bangladesh. Gloab. Environ. Change 18, 490e500. Laihonen, P., Marinova, N., Santini, M., 2011. Methods for Assessing Coastal
Kriebel, D.L., Dean, R.G., 1993. Convolution method for time-dependent beach- Vulnerability to Climate Change. ETC-CCA, Technical Paper 1/2011. http://cca.
profile response. J. Waterw. Port. Coast. Ocean. Eng 119, 204e207. eionet.europa.eu/docs/TP_1-2011 (accessed 07.03.14.).
Kristensen, P., 2004. The DPSIR Framework. National Environmental Research Rogers, S.I., Greenaway, B., 2005. A UK perspective on the development of marine
Institute, Department of Policy Analysis, Denmark. ecosystem indicators. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50 (1), 9e19.
Lambeck, K., Antonioli, F., Anzidei, M., Ferranti, L., Leoni, G., Scicchitano, G., RON, 2012. Rete Ondametrica Nazionale (accessed 07.05.12.). http://www.idromare.
Silenzi, S., 2011. Sea level change along the Italian coast during the Holocene it/analisi_ati.php.
and projections for the future. Quatern. Int. 232, 250e257. Rosskopf, C.M., Scorpio, V., 2013. Geomorphologic map of the Biferno River valley
Luo, S., Wang, H., Cai, F., 2013. An integrated risk assessment of coastal erosion floor system (Molise, Southern Italy). J. Maps 9, 106e114. http://dx.doi.org/
based on fuzzy set theory along Fujian coast, southeast Chine. Ocean Coast. 10.1080/17530350.2012.755385.
Manage. 84, 68e76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.07.007. Sarpkaya, T., Isaacson, M., 1981. Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures
Martinelli, L., Zanuttigh, B., Corbau, C., 2010. Assessment of coastal flooding hazard (New York).
along the Emilia Romagna littoral. Coast. Eng 57, 1042e1058. http://dx.doi.org/ Stockdon, H.F., Holman, R.A., Howd, P.A., Sallenger, A.H., 2006. Empirical parame-
10.1016/j.coastaleng.2010.06.007. trization of setup, swash, and run-up. Coast. Eng 53, 573e588.
Mc Granaham, G., Bolk, D., Anderson, D., 2007. The rising tide: assessing the risk of Teatini, P., Tosi, L., Strozzi, T., Carbognin, L., Cecconi, G., Rosselli, R., Libardo, S., 2012.
climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ. Resolving land subsidence within the Venice Lagoon by persistent scatterer SAR
Urban 19, 17e37. interferometry. Phys. Chem. Earth 40-41, 72e79.
Medatlas Group, 2004. Wind and Wave Atlas of the Mediterranean Sea. Western Thieler, E.R., Hammar-Klose, E.S., 1999. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability
European Union, WEAO Research Cell. to Sea-level Rise. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Atlantic Coast. Open-File Report,
Nicholls, R.J., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., 2000. Synthesis and Upscaling of Sea-leve Rise 99e593.
Vulnerability Assessment Studies (SURVAS): SURVAS Methodology. Flood Thywissen, K., 2006. Core terminology of disaster reduction: a comparative glos-
Hazard Research Centre e Middlesex University. sary. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazard-
Nicholls, R.J., Hoozemans, F.M.J., Marchand, M., 1999. Increasing flood risk and sdtowards Disaster Resilient Societies. UNUPress, Tokyo, New York, Paris.
wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses. Glob. Vallefuoco, M., Lirer, F., Ferraro, L., Pelosi, N., Capotondi, L., Sprovieri, M.,
Environ. Change 9, 69e87. Incarbona, A., 2012. Climatic variability and anthropogenic signatures in the
Overpeck, J.T., Otto-Bliesner, B.L., Miller, G.H., Muhs, D.R., Alley, R.B., Kiehl, J.T., 2006. Gulf of Salerno (southern-eastern Tyrrhenian Sea) during the last half millen-
Paleoclimatic evidence for future ice-sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise. nium. Rend. Lincei-Sci. Fis. 23, 13e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-011-
Science 311, 1747e1750. 0154-0.
€
Ozyurt, G., Ergin, A., 2010. Improving coastal vulnerability assessments to sea-level Vigo, M.I., Sanches-Reales, J.M., Trottini, M., Chao, B.F., 2011. Mediterranean Sea level
rise: a new indicatorbased methodology for decision makers. J. Coast. Res. 26, variation: analysis of the satellite altimetric data, 1992-2008. J. Geodyn. 52,
265e273. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/08-1055.1. 271e278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.02.002.
Pappone, G., Alberico, I., Amato, V., Aucelli, P.P.C., Di Paola, G., 2011. Recent evolution Vilardo, G., Ventura, G., Terranova, C., Matano, F., Nardo
, S., 2009. Ground defor-
and the present-day conditions of the Campanian Coastal plains (South Italy): mation due to tectonic, hydrothermal, gravity, hydrogeological, and anthropic
the case history of the Sele River Coastal plain. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 149, processes in the Campania Region (Southern Italy) from Permanent Scatterers
15e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/CP110021. Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 197e212.