Vulnerabilities and adaptation of ports to climate change

This art icle was downloaded by: [ UNI VERSI TY OF ADELAI DE LI BRARI ES] On: 13 February 2014, At : 09: 55 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion: ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ cj ep20 Vulnerabilities and adaptation of ports to climate change Melissa Nursey-Bray L. Campbell af ae , Boyd Blackwell ag c , Ben Brooks , Marnie d c , Laurie Goldswort hy , Hilary Pat eman , Ian c b Rodrigues , Melanie Roome , Jeffrey T. Wright & Chad L. Hewit t a , John Francis b af a Nat ional Cent re for Marine Conservat ion and Resource Sust ainabilit y, Aust ralian Marit ime College, Universit y of Tasmania , Launcest on , Tasmania , 7250 , Aust ralia b Marit ime Transport Policy Cent re, Aust ralian Marit ime College, Universit y of Tasmania , Launcest on , Tasmania , 7250 , Aust ralia c Nat ional Cent re for Port s and Shipping, Aust ralian Marit ime College, Universit y of Tasmania , Launcest on , 7250 , Tasmania , Aust ralia d Nat ional Cent re for Marit ime Engineering and Hydrodynamics, Aust ralian Marit ime College, Universit y of Tasmania , Launcest on , 7250 , Tasmania , Aust ralia e Depart ment of Geography , Populat ion and Environment , Universit y of Adelaide , Nort h Terrace Campus, Adelaide , Sout h Aust ralia , 5005 , Aust ralia f Cent re for Environment al Management , Cent ral Queensland Universit y , Gladst one , Queensland , 3680 , Aust ralia g Economics, Infrast ruct ure and Policy, KPMG , Melbourne , Vict oria , 3000 , Aust ralia Published online: 20 Nov 2012. To cite this article: Melissa Nursey-Bray , Boyd Blackwell , Ben Brooks , Marnie L. Campbell , Laurie Goldswort hy , Hilary Pat eman , Ian Rodrigues , Melanie Roome , Jeffrey T. Wright , John Francis & Chad L. Hewit t (2013) Vulnerabilit ies and adapt at ion of port s t o climat e change, Journal of Environment al Planning and Management , 56:7, 1021-1045, DOI: 10.1080/ 09640568.2012.716363 To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 09640568.2012.716363 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Vol. 56, No. 7, September 2013, 1021–1045 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Vulnerabilities and adaptation of ports to climate change Melissa Nursey-Braya,e*, Boyd Blackwella,g, Ben Brooksc, Marnie L. Campbella,f, Laurie Goldsworthyd, Hilary Patemanc, Ian Rodriguesc, Melanie Roomeb, Jeffrey T. Wrighta, John Francisb and Chad L. Hewitta,f a National Centre for Marine Conservation and Resource Sustainability, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia; bMaritime Transport Policy Centre, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia; cNational Centre for Ports and Shipping, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia; dNational Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia; eDepartment of Geography, Population and Environment, University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia; fCentre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Gladstone, Queensland 3680, Australia; gEconomics, Infrastructure and Policy, KPMG, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia (Received 27 July 2011; final version received 24 July 2012) Climate change is anticipated to have a significant impact on coastal infrastructure, including navigational aids and ports. This paper presents the results of a vulnerability assessment of ports in Australia to climate change. Results reveal variable vulnerability in ports in the short and long term in relation to their exposure to climate change. However, this is offset by inherent adaptive capacity both in current climate change initiatives driven by ports, and in the selfconfidence of the industry to be able to adapt. We conclude with a reflection on the implications of these results for future ports analyses. Keywords: ports; vulnerability; climate change; adaptation; Australia 1. Introduction Climate change is an issue that affects all people’s lives (IPCC 2007a, Steffen 2009) and will eventually impact numerous industries. To combat this, industries will need to pro-actively manage identified vulnerabilities, and develop and implement integrated management and planning decisions that take into account the multifaceted nature of climate change. In many instances industry appears to be leading this pro-active charge to strengthen systems against climate change. The anticipated changes associated with climate change in near shore and coastal systems are many. An international study of 136 maritime cities with over 1 million people (Nicholls et al. 2007a) indicated that large populations are already exposed to coastal flooding in port cities, with approximately 40 million people (0.6% of the global population) exposed to a 1 in 100-year coastal flood event. Becker et al. (2012) *Corresponding author. Email: melissa.nursey-bray@adelaide.edu.au ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online Ó 2013 University of Newcastle upon Tyne http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.716363 http://www.tandfonline.com Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1022 M. Nursey-Bray et al. have noted that climate change will disproportionately affect ports and port based economies. Numerous assessments of coastal preparedness to these anticipated changes have been undertaken for relevant social (e.g. Nicholls 1995, Adger and Kelly 1999, Nicholls et al. 2007b), environmental (e.g. Williams et al. 2008) and economic (e.g. Nicholls et al. 2007a, Hobday et al. 2008, Pecl et al. 2009) vulnerability factors. In this context, this paper reports on the first stage of a multi-disciplinary climate change vulnerability assessment of the port sector, with an explicit focus on selected ports in Australia. While vulnerability is constructed in multiple ways (Blaikie et al. 1994, Adger and Kelly 1999, Cutter et al. 2003, Downing and Patwardhan 2004, Wisner et al. 2004, Adger 2006, Smit and Wandel 2006, Folke 2006, Fussel 2007), as Table 1 shows, we take the IPCC definitions as our starting point. Our core research focus was to apply a vulnerability based approach to investigate the ports sector relative to the anticipated effects of climate change in three areas: (1) real or potential impacts on the system; (2) the systems’ ability to cope and adapt to these impacts; and (3) the extent to which coping capacity may be constrained by environmental or societal conditions. We define the ‘system’ as both the physical environment surrounding ports (including the catchment, coastal and near shore environments affecting the operational activities of the port) and the social context within which the port exists, including the elements of the community that are directly or indirectly involved in port operations. Thus, our research aimed to evaluate practices relevant to climate change preparedness within Australian ports to see if lessons could be learnt across, or applied, to environmental, economic and social components of port environments. 2. The case study: Australian ports Given the scale and size of Australia, ports play an extremely important functional and symbolic role in giving Australia international standing. There are more than 60 Table 1. Definition of key terms. Vulnerability Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Adaptation The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2001). The extent to which an activity, group, region or resource is exposed to significant climatic variations. The degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli. The effect may be direct (e.g. a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect (e.g. damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea level rise) (IPCC 2001). The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self organisation and the capacity to adapt to stress and change (IPCC 2007b). Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and reactive adaptation, private and public adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation (IPCC 2001). Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1023 international trading ports in Australia (see Table 2 and Figure 1) that are located around the continent. Ports are the gateway for the majority of international freight and contribute to an overwhelming part of the Australian economy (Becker et al. 2012). Different ports have different functions: the Port of Melbourne is Australia’s largest container and general cargo port, turning over one-third of the nation’s cargo (Infrastructure Australia 2011); the Port of Brisbane is a major coal and container port for the east coast (Infrastructure Australia 2011) and it is anticipated, with the increase of coal exports, that it will become even more important. Moreover, the transport and logistics industry associated with Australian ports bring in 14.5% of Australia’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) (Infrastructure Australia 2011), and provide over 1 million jobs within 165,000 companies in the industry (Infrastructure Australia 2011). Australia’s supply chain alone is worth an estimated $150 billion a year (Infrastructure Australia 2011). Given their scale and scope, Australian ports need to service a number of priorities. Amongst the most crucial of these is the provision of infrastructure to meet the needs of trade, ensuring availability on equitable terms to all who need it, ensuring that cargoes can get to and from the ports in an efficient manner and that ongoing building and management of the infrastructure occurs in a way that is acceptable to the broader community (Meyrick 2009). However, ports in Australia are also under increasing pressure to meet challenges such as increasing demands on their capacity to operate from the surrounding communities, more challenging planning/ approval arrangements, complex governance and funding arrangements, rapidly changing technology, and the increasing responsibility to manage for environmental outcomes on issues such as marine and atmospheric pollution, and biosecurity (managing the introduction of non-native species from other regions) (Ruiz and Hewitt 2008, Hewitt et al. 2011). Climate change introduces another level of complexity to the operating environment in which port authorities and governments plan Australia’s port infrastructure capacity. With approximately 30,000 commercial vessel calls a year (Ports Australia 2010) of which more than half are direct international entries, ports are a critical element of Australia’s trade infrastructure. There is great diversity in the current capacity of Australian ports, ranging from small, regional ports such as Flinders Island (Tasmania) to major ports such as Melbourne (Victoria) and Sydney Ports (New South Wales). All of these ports contribute to Australia’s position as a global trader, with nearly 800 million tonnes of throughput in 2007/08 alone Table 2. All cargo in mass tonnes that passes through Australian Ports from 2009/2010. State/Territory Totals New South Wales (3 ports) Victoria (4 ports) Queensland (7 ports) South Australia (1 port) Western Australia (8 ports) Tasmania (4 ports) Northern Territory (1 port) National total Source: Ports Australia (2010). Imports Exports Total 33,075,788 26,095,137 41,054,847 6,235,423 16,523,709 3,599,045 1,181,268 127,765,217 133,898,653 16,841,653 210,675,067 30,945,915 219,645,572 184,722,880 1,350,741 798,080,481 166,974,441 42,936,790 251,729,914 37,181,338 236,169,281 188,321,925 2,532,009 925,845,698 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1024 M. Nursey-Bray et al. Figure 1. Australian ports (Ports Australia 2010). Large circles represent primary ports (referenced in Table 2) and small circles represent secondary ports and terminals associated with primary ports. Recreational vessel marinas are not indicated in this Figure. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1025 (Ports Australia 2010) responsible for more than 99% of Australia’s export and import throughput by mass. There are significant expectations that Australia’s trade will continue to grow. International container trade alone is predicted to nearly triple by 2020 to almost 12 million Twenty-foot (container) Equivalent Units (TEU; a common measurement for inert-modal shipping) (Ports Australia 2010). In the context of climate change, it is critical that Australian ports remain effective for the industries and communities they serve. The key role played by ports in Australia is reinforced by the release of the National Ports Strategy by the Federal government in January 2011 (National Ports Strategy 2010). While the National Ports Strategy focuses on identifying optimum regulatory frameworks, ways to improve land planning and corridor preservation and future infrastructure requirements (especially road and rail) (National Ports Strategy 2010), there is very little reference to climate change save for paragraph 1.10 which states: The Commonwealth should lead a project to improve the evidence and forecasting basis for exports and growth in services, and develop scenarios for the impact of changes such as demography, climate and energy for planning consideration. How they do so is the key question, and understanding the dimensions of this challenge was the fundamental aim underpinning this first pass vulnerability assessment. 3. Materials and methods Our work is based on the theoretical application of the idea of vulnerability to ports, using Australian ports as a case study, and draws on literature analyses and two pilot stakeholder workshops. Workshops were held in Victoria and Tasmania and focused on the issue of climate change induced impacts on ports. Our work also occurs within the context of, and (circumstantially) builds on, an international survey of 342 port authorities, specifically port administrators, on perceptions of sea level rise, with additional smaller surveys undertaken in Texas and California (Becker et al. 2012).1 The literature analysis comprised an international search through Google and the research database Scopus. Search results using the terms ‘ports’, ‘climate change’ and ‘adaptation’ revealed 22 documents; another search of the terms ‘ports’, ‘climate change’ and ‘vulnerability’ resulted in 16 documents. A final search of Scopus using the terms ‘ports’ and ‘climate change’ resulted in 243 documents. Google searches using the terms ‘ports’ and ‘climate change’ resulted in presentation of over a million references, so we examined the links for the first 10 pages, and accessed documents relevant within this frame. Links after this stage were either irrelevant to the project or repeated previous links. Document analysis was also undertaken of reports, and other documents publicly available from port authorities and representative peak groups.2 The time period reviewed for this type of document was the last 20 years. Together, all these documents formed the corpus of texts used for analysis. The two workshops were conducted in two parts: the first part of the workshops focused on the impacts of climate change on ports, with the second part focusing on adaptation strategies that were already in place or could possibly be implemented. A survey was also conducted of the workshop participants to ascertain their opinions of the likelihood that climate change would affect ports and to identify perceived Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1026 M. Nursey-Bray et al. impact of changes on ports. Participants included ports managers, workers and administrators from within the industry. The survey was developed using a modified pre-post survey design. Two workshops were conducted in Tasmania and Victoria, Australia, with a total of 22 participants. Participants were drawn from industry (50% ports and shipping associated), government (36%) and other organisations (14% Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and academics). There was no ‘control’ group and as such, all participants followed the same process. Following this design, participants completed a questionnaire and then engaged in a half-day workshop. The workshop included open, round-table discussions and presentations on the issue of climate change and the ports and shipping industries from academics and industry stakeholders. Workshops were facilitated by a senior academic with expertise in biosecurity, marine ecology and environmental risk assessment and a maritime lawyer with a background in ship chartering and brokering. The presentations can be said to be accepting of the dominant view regarding human-induced climate change as represented in reports such as IPCC (2007a). The round-table discussions offered opportunity for open discussion and a diversity of views were aired during this time. Participants were re-surveyed after the workshop using the same instrument. The survey included Likert scaled responses to statements such as ‘The shipping transport sector has higher carbon emissions per ton than the road transport sector’ rated on a five-point scale from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Participants were also asked to assess the probability of a range of port and shipping related impacts at 5 and 20 years using a five-point scale which included the following categories ‘Almost Certain’ ‘Likely’, ‘Possible’, ‘Unlikely’ and ‘Rare’. Participants also responded to free form questions about climate change preparedness and mitigation/adaptation strategies in ports. The data from the surveys were entered into an MS Excel spreadsheet and exported to SPSS for further analysis.3 4. Vulnerability assessment results and discussion 4.1. Real or potential impacts on the system A number of actual (i.e. observed) and potential (i.e. predicted) impacts associated with climate induced changes to the ‘system’ within which ports operate (i.e. catchment, coastal and near shore environments) were identified from the literature (Table 3). We define impacts here as the direct or indirect mechanisms by which humans or ecosystems are affected (positively or negatively) by the phenomenon known as climate change. These impacts include changes to environmental, economic and social factors (e.g. Nicholls et al. 2007b, Hobday et al. 2008, Pecl et al. 2009). Our review highlighted that in terms of real and potential impacts, ports are at risk from climate induced change in five key areas: (1) environment; (2) infrastructure; (3) ports and people; (4) occupational health and safety (OH&S); and (5) supply chain logistics. 4.1.1. Environmental impact Although increasing air temperature is often recognised as the major change to the Earth’s climate, there are a number of other important factors that have been observed to change. These factors are likely to contribute to the vulnerability of the port sector (Table 3) and are predicted to continue to change through to 2100. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Table 3. Observed and projected changes in a range of climate change observations (IPCC 2007a) and their likely impact on the port sector. Climate Change Observation Observed changes (to date) –1 Projected changes: from present to 2100* Rise of 1.8 + 0.5 mm yr since 1960 Increase of 0.748C (+0.188C) in past 100 yr Rise of 0.18–0.59 m, least increase in the southern oceans and parts of North Atlantic Ocean Increase of between 1.1–6.48C Precipitation Increases at high latitudes, decreases in many subtropical regions Sea ice extent, glaciers, ice caps Increase in eastern North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia Decrease in all e.g. seasonally frozen ground in Northern Hemisphere decreased by 7% Decrease in annual and summer minimum levels Cold days/nights Decrease in number Warm days/nights Sea surface Temperature Increase in number Increase of *0.68C since 1955 Altered wind-speeds/loads Limited change or slight reduction – based on limited data** Snow cover, permafrost, seasonally frozen ground Substantial decrease in all Storm surges, inundation and flooding of ports, insurance costs, OH&S issues Increased bio-deterioration resulting in higher maintenance costs Changes to run-off & siltation, increased dredging, OH&S issues for port workers Restricted to high latitude ports; not relevant to Australian ports Substantial decrease in all, large parts of Arctic Ocean will no longer have year-round ice cover, no widespread melting in Antarctica 50–100% decline in cold air outbreaks More frequent Increase by 2.58C, main increase in central and eastern equatorial Pacific Changes to navigation routes, or development of new ports in high latitude regions; not relevant to Australian trade Negligible impact on ports sector Increases associated with extreme events Increased problems navigating narrow channels, increased costs for larger tugs to assist vessel manoeuvrability Negligible impact on ports sector Migration of fish stocks changing the social use of ports; possible relocation of ports due to changing needs; increase in invasive species introductions and outbreak 1027 (continued) Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Sea level Land surface air temperature Likely (direct) impact on ports Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1028 Table 3. (Continued). Climate Change Observation Ocean circulation/currents Ocean acidity Extreme meteorological events Observed changes (to date) Atlantic and southern polar front jet streams moved polewards, strengthening of westerly winds Increase in acidic (surface pH decrease of 0.1 units) More frequent Projected changes: from present to 2100* Likely (direct) impact on ports Changes to shipping routes; unlikely to significantly affect Australian trade Increase in acidity (surface pH decrease by 0.14–0.35 units) Storm tracks move poleward with associated changes in wind, precipitation and temperature Increased corrosion, biodeterioration resulting in higher maintenance costs General issues for extreme events include: increased time vessels waiting to enter port, disruption of transport (road and rail) to ports; relocation of ports due to changing navigation routes, increase in insurance costs, OH&S considerations Increased wind speeds ¼ damage to structures, engineering upgrades to structures & cargo handling equipment required Coastal flooding in port cities, increased run-off, disruption of transport (road and rail) to ports; siltation, heavy metals & pollutants entering ports, increased dredging Work stoppages (OH&S), disruption of transport (road and rail) to ports; increased energy use Water shortages, poor agricultural commodity production Tropical storms (e.g. cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons) Increase in intensity Increase in intensity – but fewer of them – further penetration at higher latitudes Heavy precipitation events Increase in number Increase in heavy daily rainfall events in many regions Heat waves Increase in duration 90% increase in many tropical areas, * 40% increase elsewhere Droughts More common, intense and longer Greater risk of droughts in midcontinental areas Notes: *IPCC (2007a). **Widespread wind readings have only been collected since the 1970s – when compared with temperature measurements (150 years) and the scale and pace of climate change this makes prediction of wind-related changes problematic. Regardless, this is a particularly significant factor in the navigation of ships. M. Nursey-Bray et al. Changes to Atlantic circulation Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1029 For ports, the most important change is likely to be sea level rise but others include changes to precipitation (both yearly averages and heavy rainfall events), sea surface temperature, ocean currents, ocean acidity, extreme weather events and tropical storms. These events will lead to a variety of impacts including: increased storm surges, inundation and coastal flooding requiring increased coastal hardening, increased coastal runoff and siltation, requiring ports to generate increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from more frequent dredging; increasing bioavailability of entrained heavy metals and other pollutants; and increased high wind and temperature stoppages under Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) laws, with consequential delays to berthing and cargo-handling operations. Extreme wind speeds will probably require engineering upgrades to piers, berths, wharf moorings, container gantries and other cargo-handling equipment. Sea level rise in particular will have multiple impacts. For example, the amount of high and lowland flooding could reduce the top clearance between ships and bridges. In turn, this will mean that the elevation at which waves affect structures will increase, potentially undermining the structures per se and will increase the exposure of decks on wharfs and piers. This will increase corrosion rates and material degradation. Flow-on effects that will potentially influence the port operating environment are also likely. For example, increased flooding events may result in increased siltation within the port, requiring more frequent dredging operations to occur. The flow-on from this is that dredge material may be more frequently transported to dredge spoil areas, increasing the exposure of the dredge spoil area(s) to invasive marine species that are translocated in the spoil. Similarly, as new ocean routes open due to climate change impacts (e.g. Arctic Ocean changes), ports may be exposed to a different suite of invasive species and have to pro-actively manage this potentially increased threat (e.g. Harris and Tyrrell 2001, Stachowicz et al. 2002, Hewitt 2003, OcchipinitAmbrogi and Savini 2003, Lewis et al. 2004, Occhipinti-Ambrogi 2007, Hellman et al. 2008). However, Australian policy makers are yet to broaden their regulations to consider the marine biosecurity implications of these changes. Extreme weather and changing climatic conditions may also force the creation of new ports and marinas as commercial fish stocks migrate further southward and trading patterns change, in keeping with greater focus on GHG emissions. Development of new ports will probably occur in response to proximity of bulk export resources as well as the conflicts with urban development restricting existing port expansion requirements. It is highly likely that physical changes to the operating environment of ports associated with weather changes will drive changes to the regulatory framework, including: tightened planning regulations for coastal planning and development, alterations to spoil dumping requirements, and changes to the weather components of OH&S legislation. Other changes will probably include the costs of infrastructure upgrades required for the security of logistic transport chains to ports (e.g. floodproofing road and rail networks), upgrades to harbour tug capacity, changes to draft and air-draft restrictions, and possible moves towards cold-ironing (i.e. the use of shore based power generation). Regulatory restrictions on port emissions will probably lead to significantly slower transit speeds in port waters and the need for greater fuel efficiency in cargo handling systems and operations. The use of alternative fuels, such as liquid natural gas (LNG), in ships to reduce GHG emissions will, in turn, require new infrastructure for bunkering operations. 1030 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 4.1.2. M. Nursey-Bray et al. Infrastructure Australian port infrastructure is likely to experience an increased risk of inundation from sea level rise, more frequent extreme events, more intense tropical storms, encroachment of invasive species due to warmer water temperature and increased corrosion due to changes in ocean acidity (Table 3). For example, in Australia, a review of the infrastructure and community services along the coast show a large number are within 200 m of the coast and hence at risk. Other infrastructure impacts include weakening of the foundations of buildings and facilities, mainly due to sea level rise, groundwater movement affecting chemical structure of buildings, and structural fatigue from extreme events. There is likely to be increased ground movement, due to changes in groundwater which may also affect the chemical structure of foundations. Port infrastructure may sustain fatigue of structures from extreme storm events. Buildings will be affected by increased temperatures, with solar radiation potentially reducing the life of buildings with associated effects being increased expansion and materials degradation of concrete joints, steel, asphalt, protective cladding, coatings, sealants, timber and masonry. Similarly, the effect on navigation routes (hence port placement) due to changes to ocean temperature, ocean circulation and currents, storms and sea ice melt are also of concern. However, the latter is more likely to be important in the northern hemisphere if large parts of the Arctic Ocean no longer have year-round ice cover, then navigation routes will change (Wilson et al. 2004, Chapin et al. 2006, IPCC 2007a). Port authorities could identify and assess any risks to coastal infrastructure that arise, which will reduce the chance of future economic costs to industry. One option, although it is not ideal, may be the adaptation of existing structures’ resilience to extreme events by increasing or redeveloping barriers used to protect wharfs and ports (e.g. Hallegatte 2009, Hamin and Gurran 2009). Retrofitting, although potentially difficult (Hamin and Gurran 2009, Hallegatte et al. 2011), is an option that may become more prominent when adapting infrastructure to climate impacts (Hallegatte 2009, Hawkes et al. 2010). This will improve the resilience of ports’ infrastructure and services but comes with a substantial price tag (Hallegatte 2009). To reduce these costs, port authorities need to enquire about adopting new and efficient climate-sensitive building designs and methods for adapting old structures for future climate change impacts. Other more drastic options may include the relocation of marinas and wharfs in order to reduce any impacts climate change will have on vessels and infrastructure. In 2011, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted a revised version of the international convention dealing with ship sourced air pollution, MARPOL Annex VI, to contain provisions for reducing ship GHG emissions. The provisions include reduced emissions through improved design of new vessels as well as through improved operational efficiency of all vessels. Opportunities for improved operational efficiency include voyage planning, fleet management and cargo handling. Optimisation of voyage plans is partly limited by berth availability at the destination port. Reducing ship speed between ports is an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, even with reduced speeds, ships often will be forced to wait for berths. They might anchor or simply cruise around near the edge of the continental shelf. The amount of fuel consumed can be significant. Larger port capacity and virtual arrival systems can reduce waiting times. Larger ships are more fuel efficient. Efficient fleet management can be facilitated by reducing port Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1031 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 restrictions on ship size and by quick port turn-around, both requiring infrastructure development. 4.1.3. Ports and people The implications of climate change for people within Australian port settlements and coastal cities are diverse. As such, the impacts of climate change will not affect just the ports per se, but the people that live and work within them. There will be a multitude of impacts on health (e.g. Kalkstein and Smoyer 1993, McMichael et al. 2006) and other social services that will affect not only individuals but collectively, how societies transact day-to-day business. For example, sea level rise will have an impact on the mobility of people that live within port settlements and have impact on land values and land use. Modelling of the effects of a 1m sea level rise, (projected as possible within the next 30–60 years) has identified that up to 700,000 properties in Australia would be inundated, and this would cost an estimated $150 billion (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts 2009). Further, sea level rise will also displace populations that live in major port areas such as Port Botany in NSW or Port Phillip in Victoria. Port Phillip, for example, will experience flooding of its major shipping docks, cargo storage regions, marinas and berth areas. The Port of Brisbane will be at risk of complete inundation under sea level rise projections. Energy use may also be altered. Whether climate change impacts will cause increased incidence of cold or warmer weather, predictions are that electricity generation and use will increase markedly (Giannakopoulous and Psiloglou 2006). This will require many people to change their lifestyles, as well as forcing them to pay higher costs for electricity and energy. For example, Giannakopoulous and Psiloglou (2006) asserted that there will be an estimated 30% increase in energy demand in Athens by 2080 during the month of July due to air conditioning, while in London, a typical air conditioned office building is projected to incur energy costs for cooling up to an additional 10% by the 2050s, and up to 20% by the 2080s (LCCP 2002). A number of port cities may also suffer from a shortage of water (LCCP 2002), caused by regional variations and vulnerabilities to climate change impacts. In turn, these will cause issues within port regions, and the relationship between upstream effects, water quality and supply, and port activities will come into focus. The cost incurred by port cities, such as New Orleans, to basically rebuild the infrastructure and community required to re-assert itself as a functioning port is another consideration. For example, estimates show that damages from Hurricane Katrina were approximately US$81 billion (Nordhaus 2006). The IPCC (2007a) has estimated that total economic costs are projected to be significantly in excess of US$100 billion per annum. There are also wider economic effects to be taken into consideration. Results from a macro-economic analysis of Hurricane Katrina show that the indirect impacts were in fact 25% over and above the direct costs, bringing the related damage costs for the hurricane within the vicinity of US$130 billion (Hallegatte 2007). Insurance costs derived from flooding and other events, or disasters, are another socio-economic impact that should not be underestimated. Insurance companies are trying to come to terms with how to address climate change (Klein and Nicholls 1999). It is envisaged that insurance policies and potential claims of port authorities Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1032 M. Nursey-Bray et al. arising from climate change will have flow-on effects on individual stakeholders and the public in general, much like in other systems such as agriculture (e.g. O’Brien et al. 2004). In Australia, for example, the floods of January 2011 in Brisbane (one of Australia’s largest port cities) that are referred to as a 1 in 200-year flood event, is estimated to have cost billions of dollars in insurance and clean-up operations. These floods were not restricted to Brisbane but affected 75% of the state of Queensland, with other floods also occurring across four eastern seaboard states. Disruption of social networks and cultural heritage are probably casualties of climate change in key ports. Hallegatte et al. (2008) summarised a study on the impacts of climate change for the Port of Copenhagen and found that psychological trauma, death and injury are also related social impacts to the estimated floods and other climate incidences. The study by Hallegatte et al. (2008) focused on Denmark and highlighted the loss of employment that may arise from climate change impacts on Copenhagen, and discussed the need to address this issue as part of a package of adaptation strategies. This is an issue that many ports may experience, depending on the range of exposure to climate change impacts – and the inherent resilience or capacity of the industry, or people, within that settlement to cope with and respond to that change. 4.1.4. Occupational health and safety impacts There are a range of Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) hazards linked to the expected changes in climate, and the majority of these have implications for individuals working within the ports and shipping industries. Haines et al. (2006) identified a range of human health effects associated with climate change. There are seven categories of hazards that may lead to possible OH&S effects (Schulte and Chun 2009): (1) increased ambient temperature; (2) air pollution; (3) ultraviolet (UV) radiation; (4) extreme weather; (5) expanded vector habitats; (6) industrial transitions and emerging industries; and (7) changes in the built environment. Sea level rise is also expected to have an effect on ports and delivery of OH&S – recognised by the Port of Brisbane, for example, that has a specific code relating to climate and flood immunity, which reads Buildings and structures have a constructed floor level that provides expected flood immunity for health and safety, and expected sea level rise. (Port of Brisbane 2010, p. 82) These are not new hazards within OH&S, but are likely to be amplified with climate change (e.g. Nicholls et al. 2007a). Moreover, it is possible that a number of hazards will act synergistically or cumulatively to make the work environment more hazardous for certain groups of workers. Workers who have underlying respiratory problems (such as asthma), who are more sensitive to UV and temperature are likely to face higher OH&S risks than other workers (Samanek et al. 2006, Shea et al. 2008). Work practices, such as confined space entry, certain maintenance procedures and working at heights, may become too risky under the additive effects described above. Thermal stress is likely to increase with extreme hot-weather events (Martens 1998, Koppe et al. 2002), and outside workers are likely to be exposed to higher levels of UV, increasing the risk of certain skin and eye diseases (Gallagher and Lee 2006). Such events are sometimes associated with slow moving or stationary high pressure systems (Vendentorren and Empereur-Bissonnet 2005) and these may also Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1033 increase the concentration of airborne contaminants, leading to more acute and chronic respiratory issues (Kinney 2008). Extreme weather events within Bass Strait itself may create safety issues and challenge the limits of human and ship performance within this context. Wind loads may make the loading and unloading of containers and other cargo difficult for periods of time, with associated risks to people working on gantries, cranes and assisting on the ships or land. It is also important to recognise that workers’ health is not determined by risks such as UV exposure or thermal stress alone. Issues such as productivity (Brooks 2007, Maudgalya et al. 2008), employment status (Quinlan and Bohle 2004), access to health services (Islam 2007, Hoerster 2011) and organisational culture (Brooks 2008) are likely to have a compounding effect on occupational hazards and may lead to behaviour that is unexpected when the risk is considered in isolation. The resilience of other aspects of organisations and systems that may be undermined by climate change impacts will therefore impinge on both worker health and safety. 4.1.5. Supply chain impacts Supply chains, will also be impacted by climate change.4 Changes to weather patterns may have a major impact on transport systems and their associated infrastructure, such as ports. Associated changes with weather patterns will also lead to shifts in population: 200 million people are expected to be on the move to the coast by 2050 with 26 million already displaced by climate change (Oxfam International 2009). Consequently, supply chains that have depended upon cheap transport options, particularly sea, may find these less viable as the risks increase and population centres migrate. While it is hard to differentiate precisely between the effects of population growth and climate change, these shifts will affect patterns of consumption so that supply chains to reach these people will need to alter. Changing weather patterns will also affect agricultural use of land, with, for example, pastoral areas becoming less productive, such as in South Africa (Oxfam International 2009), so the supply chains that distributed these products may become redundant. Many ports will find that as supply chain patterns of trade alter, their viability will alter, with some unable to attract and retain trade while others gain more business. The impact of climate change on supply chains is likely to be incremental as these changes occur over time. Port industries should focus on strategically managing the value they deliver through their supply chain to achieve their strategic objectives. Decisions should continue to be made on objective criteria such as return on capital and operating costs, as well as delivering value to the customer (Nikolic 2009, Simpson 2009). One tool that is assisting firms is supply chain design and modelling, which will enable them to react to the dynamism inherent in climate change effects and provide solutions, for example, to facilitate location and transport routes (Simpson 2009). This tool is but one example of how firms are being pro-active and attempting to manage their supply chains according to the best information available, as environmental issues are brought to the fore. Port industries will be facing additional costs of doing business as accounting changes for carbon trading, credits and offsets are implemented (Sox First Management and Compliance 2009). Schemes relating to carbon-abatement affect the supply chains as firms minimise their costs. For some retailers up to 80% of their carbon footprint resides upstream (Brickman and Ungerman 2008). Procurement sources may well alter as these costs are included in viability decisions. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1034 M. Nursey-Bray et al. On a secondary level, ports are also faced with risks to their viability based on their ability to physically handle trade as climate change impacts their infrastructure. Changes to sea level and more intensive storms may affect existing port infrastructure by destabilising structures caused by buffeting over time. This will increase the risks to supply chain practitioners in using their facilities. With sea levels predicted to rise by different amounts around any given coastline, these risks will not be evenly spread. One key impact of climate change on many ports will be their ability to handle humanitarian aid supply chains. With the expectation that there will be an increasing number of disasters of greater scale as storms become more severe, there will be more requirements to facilitate massive aid operations (Oxfam International 2009). Ports then are faced principally with risks associated with changing networks of supply chains and the opportunities and challenges this provides them with regarding attracting and retaining trade. These changes should be part of a wider paradigm shift towards sustainability. Any consideration then of how to respond to climate change must involve reflection on what this means for supply chain management. It is of strategic advantage to supply chain managers to build sustainability frameworks into their performance management. For example, leading companies are now frequently considering the value of sustainability improvements, as well as cost-efficiency and quality of service when reviewing new projects. Given the strong link between sustainability and performance, pro-actively embedding sustainability into strategic supply chain management will continue (Nikolic 2009, Simpson 2009). It is anticipated that climate change, an integral element of sustainability, will be pragmatically integrated into existing operations. 4.2. The ability of systems to cope and adapt to these impacts 4.2.1. Adaptive capacity Adaptive capacity relates to the ability of the socio-ecological system to adapt to change, which in turn depends on the resources (human and other) available. Within the port system, our analysis shows adaptive capacity manifest in three ways: (1) industry confidence in their ability to change over time; (2) the social resilience of the system; and (3) the adaptation options already being initiated by the industry. Workshop participants were asked to identify their awareness of the degree to which ports in Victoria and Tasmania had developed adaptation strategies to respond to climate change issues. The results of this section of the survey are found in Table 4. They indicate highly variable responses across impact types, demonstrating the different approaches to climate change, perhaps associated with differences in the way ports perceive that they will be affected by these issues. It is clear that significant work has been undertaken to assess operational issues such as ship navigation in higher winds and the effect on physical port infrastructure of storm events and corrosion. Similarly, strategies for addressing biological invasion in port waters were well advanced. Less adaptation work has been performed to address issues associated with sea level rises, siltation and heat damage of port infrastructure. The workshops revealed that to some extent port managers perceive that strong adaptive capacity within the industry can deal with climate change impacts that Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 4. Adaptive strategic responses to select climate change issues in ports. Impact Increased vulnerability of port structures, including cargo handling equipment, to extreme weather events Degradation of wharves through increased corrosion Heightened risk of biological invasions in port waters Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1035 Loss of port land or adjacent industrial land through sea level rise or increased surges Increased frequency of flooding of port land or adjacent industrial land Increased siltation of rivers Heat damage to transport infrastructure, e.g. railway lines servicing ports Risks to vessels transiting port channels during high winds Heightened risk using turning basins and ship manoeuvring during high winds Strategy level & % (total n ¼ 22) 50% of respondents were aware of strategies being developed in this area 50% of respondents were aware of strategies being developed in this area 64% of respondents were aware of ports either having finalised or finalising strategies in this area. 36% were aware of strategies being developed in this area; 41% believed it was too early for strategies in this area. 73% of respondents believed it was too early to develop strategies in this area. 68% of respondents believed it was too early to develop strategies in this area. 45% of respondents believed it was too early to develop strategies in this area. 59% of respondents were aware of ports either having finalised or finalising strategies in this area. 59% of respondents were aware of ports either having finalised or finalising strategies in this area. already exist. Great faith was articulated in the capacity of ports to develop engineering solutions as part of their forward planning for maintenance and upgrades. Some suggested solutions included the building of new wharves (with adjusted freeboard height), breakwaters and wind breaks, reinforcement of existing structures and the building of barrages. Monitoring processes such as checking wind breaks on cranes or the mooring capacity of wharves and lines were also suggested. It was apparent that many ports are already pro-active and adaptive in their approach to the stochastic nature of weather and climate. Infrastructure design standards are already being reviewed in terms of climate change impacts, with the result being that infrastructure is reviewed or rebuilt where resilience is inadequate. Workshop respondents also cited a number of examples of existing initiatives as evidence of ongoing adaptive capacity. Examples of these initiatives include specifications for a new berth at Geelong (Victoria), which is being built for a wood chip carrier, which has taken into account ‘‘more periods of windy days, increased wind strength, and higher bollard pull’’. Respondents also noted that several ports were endeavouring to measure emissions and reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to be ‘good corporate citizens’. Such monitoring provides baseline data which is an important starting point for adaptation. Tasports (the Tasmanian entity responsible for state-owned port management), for example, is building a green strip as a carbon credit at Bell Bay. Ship operators represented at the workshops were preparing for climate change by assessing the type of engine to use in the next generation of ship. Alternative fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) are being considered and the impact of an emissions trading scheme on shipping (fuel) costs is expected to be considerable. It 1036 M. Nursey-Bray et al. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 was also anticipated that there could be a modal shift to sea transport and greater use of coastal shipping. This confidence is supported by our desk top review of existing adaptation measures undertaken by the ports industry worldwide as evidenced by the responses gathered from industry in this study (Table 5). Becker et al. (2012) also found in an international survey of port authorities that 63% of the 93 respondents reported they had ‘‘at least one policy that specifically addressed potential climate change effects or that they discussed adaptation in staff meetings’’. We report similar percentages of organisations considering adaptive responses to associated transportation infrastructure (45–50% compared to Becker et al.’s (2012) Table 5. Climate change adaptation responses by the port industry. (Drawn from the review of literature which is not designed to be a comprehensive summary of all initiatives but represents the types and diversity of adaptation and programmes being developed). Agency/Organisation/ Instrument World Ports Climate Declaration International Association of Ports and Harbours Port of Mississippi Gijon Ports Authority Port of Genoa Port of Amsterdam Aflsoitdijk Study, Amsterdam Marine Insurer IT Club American Association of Port Authorities I2S2 (the Institute for Sustainable Seaports) PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses) Action Signed by 55 ports worldwide, provides guidelines and benchmarks for ports wishing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. World Ports Climate Initiative: aims to encourage global collaborative action through six lead projects: (1) carbon footprint management; (2) inshore power supply; (3) environmental ship indexing; (4) clean terminal equipment; (5) energy efficiency; and (6) sustainable lease contracts. Raise the ports by 3 m above sea level in order to protect against future severe storm events. Commissioned studies by DELTARES and MARIN to assess impact of predicted swell on infrastructure. ‘Climate proofing’ the ports via urban waterfront renewal programs that focus on sustainability. Established a citizens panel on sustainable port development to gain fresh insights and ideas on port development and planning. Assessing short-term measures that may be used to climate proof the Dutch Closure Dyke, focusing on sea defences through creation of tidal marshes. Assessed weather as one of top three reasons for incidences resulting in claims in sea ports and developed suite of insurance risk reduction measures. Shared practical resource to provide ports with an overarching framework to assist their preparation for emergencies – the Emergency Preparedness and Continuity of Operation Planning Manual. The I2S2 supplies port-specific, sustainability-related tools, information, data exchange, networks, best practices and innovative technology information that members of the maritime industry can integrate into their strategic planning and business operations. The I2S2 helps ports determine what does and does not work to leverage successes and avoid problems. Series of measures constituting responses of navigation to possible climate change. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1037 40%) and higher percentages for effects on facility operations (59% compared to 39%). Our results may be subject to a small sample bias, and some of the difference may be attributable to difficulties in comparing our results (Table 4) with Becker et al.’s (2012, Figure 7). It remains apparent that a range of strategic responses are being considered, and any growth in these percentages – in particular with respect to operations, infrastructure and the surrounding community – will indicate that the majority of ports are actively assessing these issues. A number of adaptive policy initiatives are also being undertaken across Australia. The Port of Melbourne, for example, is developing a Climate Change Policy, and Sydney Ports is developing a Climate Change Risk Assessment and has instituted the practice of considering climate change mitigation factors in development applications. In many cases ports are driving the adaptation agenda, with Table 5 highlighting the diversity of responses worldwide in this area. Workshop participants noted the need for integrated responses as highlighted in the following excerpts: ‘‘This requires a co-ordinated approach led by government and industry leaders to effect positive change for the industry’’; ‘‘Adaptive strategies should be developed at all levels, supported by regulation and incentive based measures’’; and ‘‘Integrated tools for assessing and predicting risks (including financial) would be very helpful’’. One respondent completed their survey with a warning against underestimating the value of the community in responding to climate change and suggested it was necessary to ‘‘keep the public informed about how climate change is impacting on ports and shipping and what is being done to adapt to these changes’’. This leads directly to the issue of social resilience. 4.2.2. Social resilience The social fabric and resilience of communities in this context is very important, and hence factors that must be taken into consideration when reviewing the impact of climate change on ports. Indeed, one of the determinants of societal vulnerability is its resilience. Folke (2006, 259) defined social–ecological resilience as: (i) the amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still remain within the same state or domain of attraction, (ii) the degree to which the system is capable of self organisation (versus lack of organisation, or organisation forced by external factors), and (iii) the degree to which the system can build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation. The importance of the role of resilience in this instance is brought to the fore in the example of the recovery programmes that occurred after Hurricane Katrina. Events surrounding Hurricane Katrina provide evidence that supports the building of layers of resilience, that acknowledge the persistent vulnerability of the region to storms and other climatic events, by enabling the institutional, social, environmental, economic, jurisdictional, infrastructure and other dimensions to work collaboratively, to re-knit the community together (Glavovic 2008). The integration of coastal management and port communities is also advanced by the Port of Melbourne as a good strategy to build resilience within ports in the face of climate change (Port of Melbourne 2008). This recognises that ports are a component of wider functioning communities that are both directly affected by port operations as workers or neighbours, and indirectly affected through the role ports play in transport networks. 1038 M. Nursey-Bray et al. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Factoring in resilience as part of adapting to climate change in ports will enable policy makers to incorporate the robustness of natural, social and economic systems to change and can help to provide a platform for suggested solutions. The advantage of the resilience perspective is that it shifts policies from those that aspire to control change in systems assumed to be stable, to managing the capacity of social-ecological systems to cope with, adapt to, and shape change (Folke 2006). 4.3. Extent to which coping capacity may be constrained by societal and environmental conditions While this review and the workshop outcomes highlight the fact that there is a relatively good measure of social resilience and adaptive capacity within the ports industry to the impacts of climate change, there is still a range of societal and environmental factors that will act to constrain the implementation of adaptation strategies over time. It is these factors that also need incorporating into policy. For example, in Australia, patterns of human migration serve to inhibit and put pressure on port development, competing with port demands for land and infrastructure. This pattern of migration, from inland to the coast is so tangible that in Australia it has been coined the ‘‘sea change phenomenon’’ (Burnley and Murphy 2004). This refers to the movement of people, usually for lifestyle reasons, from a hectic to calmer lifestyle, usually by the coast (conversely, those moving inland are called ‘tree changers’). It is estimated that there are 5.9 million Australians living in sea change communities, a figure that is growing by 9.8% compared with approximately 6.1% growth nationally (Gurran et al. 2008). These figures have vast implications for development of and responses by ports in the context of climate change (Nursey-Bray and Shaw 2010). Geographical location is also a factor inhibiting port development. As noted above, land use is often prescribed by other pressures, and jurisdictional and institutional arrangements may not facilitate movement of ports, or the development of new infrastructure and locales as might be relevant for ports facing new challenges as a result of climate change. For example, sea level rise will put further pressure on the availability of land for the development of new ports Another important constraint for ports managers is dealing with ‘upstream/ down-stream effects’ (Hewitt 2009). The question of who should take responsibility for managing the impacts of climate change is especially problematic in Australia when the cause of the problem might be related to upstream activities but the effect felt port side. A submission by the Port of Melbourne (2008, p. 4) shows the challenge inherent in this issue: Port managers are generally constrained in their management influence to address reduced water quality and contaminated sediments which have resulted from poor practices upstream. Nevertheless, ports incur the direct costs of removing sediment deposits and water-borne solid waste from berths and shipping channels to ensure the safe navigation of vessels in port waters. Finally, the issue of uncertainty is one that confronts ports managers, and port systems overall. Uncertainty in the context of how climate change will manifest and therefore the extent, diversity, regularity, distribution and magnitude of its impacts, is one of the key difficulties for policy makers (Petit 2005, Ha-Duong et al. 2007). Uncertainty is a key theme in the discourse about climate change, and debate rages Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1039 in discussions on how fast change will occur, at what scale, how catastrophic it will be, and on the accuracy of climate predictions (Carter et al. 1999). As Jones (2001,198) noted on the importance of uncertainty within policy planning: Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Uncertainty management is the raison d’etre of risk assessment, extreme care must be exercised throughout an assessment, so that uncertainties are identified, the nature of their propagation throughout the assessment is understood and that they are communicated as part of the results. In general, uncertainty arises from insufficient, inaccurate or unavailable data, external developments and cross-boundary issues, and the unpredictability of human behaviour (Westmacott 2001). For example, workshop respondents raised the possibility of missing something from left field and discussed the ‘principle of postponement’, meaning the deliberate delay of a decision to the last possible moment. Respondents believed, however, that within this context a number of ‘no regrets’ actions could be taken. For example, they’re building a new dock. It’s much cheaper to add another 2.5 millimetres of concrete under a new dock than it is to repair an older one. So, that’s a very simple no regrets action that can be done within a 20-year normal redevelopment process. In addition, while there will be many climate change impacts on ports, there is also uncertainty inherent in the predictions in relation to where, when and at what scale these impacts will manifest. Thus port managers may use the lack of certainty as a rationale to do nothing (Patrinos and Bamzai 2005). Others may use this uncertainty as a rationale to adopt the precautionary principle (Yohe et al. 2004, Stern 2006). In our case study, participants considered doing nothing as a potentially appropriate decision, but only if a risk assessment had been done. For example, port authorities may use climate forecasts as the basis on which to pro-actively undertake adaptation, prior to any effect being felt. Workshop participants suggested that a national risk assessment framework common across all ports (which outlined principles, consideration of hazards, and consistent methodology across ports even if the outcomes would not be universal), was a means to resolve some of these issues. Either way, for port systems, the uncertainty relating to the finer detail about how actual impacts of climate predictions will manifest on a case by case basis, inhibits institutional action or application of precautionary engineering solutions to effect change (Nursey-Bray and SGS Consulting 2007). This factor also makes it harder to harness the political will needed to progress mitigation or adaptation agendas. 5. Summary and conclusions Ports and shipping industries are going to be affected by climate change. This paper highlights some of the changes on both global and national scales, including effects on occupational health and safety, economic livelihoods, biosecurity and trade routes. Ports are starting to embark upon a myriad ways to both build mitigation pathways to reduce climate change impact and develop adaptation mechanisms to support the ports’ industry in coping with the changes that are currently, and will potentially, occur. Assessing vulnerability is one way of doing this, and the resilience of socialecological systems such as ports needs to take account of three dimensions: (1) real Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1040 M. Nursey-Bray et al. or potential impacts on the system; (2) the system’s ability to cope and adapt to these impacts; and (3) the extent to which coping capacity may be constrained by environmental or societal conditions. In this context, this paper presented an evaluation of a literature analysis and workshop outcomes relating to the vulnerabilities of ports in Australia to climate change and the implications for port planning and policy. Our results reveal differential vulnerability in ports in the short and long term in relation to their exposure to climate change. Vulnerability is variable across the different aspects identified in this report and is to some degree port-specific and tradespecific. For example, OH&S vulnerability in the short term is relatively low, and the control options (and therefore resilience) are well known and easily implementable. So vulnerability is low. For example, in the car carrier trade out of Geelong, wind loads are already a factor and an increase in wind loads associated with extreme events could be significant in the short term, therefore vulnerability is higher. However, this is offset by inherent adaptive capacity both in current climate change initiatives driven by ports, and in the self-confidence of the industry to be able to adapt. The fact that there exist high levels of social resilience within the sector also indicates future adaptation to climate change will be navigated with some success, despite the complexities brought about by OH&S and supply chain management. Factors such as human migration patterns created by ‘sea change’, uncertainty and location all play a role in further inhibiting port prospects in relation to effective change. This project has implications for the future direction of ports in Australia and elsewhere. First, to help ameliorate the issue of uncertainty and disseminate climate change science, development of a national communication strategy between both the ports and the scientific community is worth investigation. Port authorities could consider incorporating climate change forecasts into short and long-term plans, to the extent possible. Both ports and the scientific communities could work together to keep abreast of developments in climate science and climate change adaptation. Common sense suggests that ports are at particular risk from climate change due to their geographical locations (e.g. Nicolls et al. 2007a). Partnerships could also be built between ports and other agencies, (including local, regional and state-wide bodies), to form alliances to address climate change adaptation and collaboratively learn from the actions that other ports are taking to prepare for climate change, both within and beyond their immediate regions. Finally, in the Australian context, a national study that focuses on ports’ risk from climate change and their adaptation options would be useful. While several ongoing regional and national level studies are examining climate change impacts on multi-modal transportation systems, marine transportation still receives less attention than other modes. This is best summed up by a comment from the submission presented by the Port of Enfield in Adelaide (South Australia) to a Federal government inquiry on climate change and coastal communities, arguing that ‘‘regional coastal vulnerability assessments (incorporating economic, social, and environmental impact assessment) be undertaken in accordance with a nationally consistent framework, with the flexibility to include particular issues of local interest or concern’’ (Port of Enfield 2008, p. 3). There is still much work that needs to be done, particularly in the development of future detailed assessments on a case-by-case basis so as to establish differentiated responses, tailored to each port region. As such, we recommend the development of Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1041 a suite of Australian case studies that can form part of a wider nationwide vulnerability assessment of the impacts of, and potential responses of ports to, climate change. Ultimately, as with all climate related impacts, negotiating how to respond to climate change impacts on ports is an endeavour requiring a combination of people, knowledge, political and corporate will and resourcing. Future ports management will require that port authorities bring all the social capital and resources they have to bear to build resilience to the ongoing, and what will be accelerated, impacts of climate change over time. However, the nature of ports’ business means that there is already in existence a corporate culture of adaptation to change, not least changes in the weather. This will stand the industry in good stead as it moves into the challenges of climate change of the future. Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the assistance of a UTAS cross-theme grant, and specifically the support of Professors David Rich and Jo Laybourn-Parry (UTAS). The authors would also like to thank all the members of the industry who have generously given their time and advice to the project team members. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. Becker’s call for case study research makes a nice frame for this project, and we acknowledge it as it helps give international resonance to our own work. However, the work we undertook was coincidentally done at the same time and thus does not seek to build on the larger study except circumstantially. In Australia, a peak group refers to an organisation that acts as an umbrella institution to a number of other groups, reflecting the vested interests in and membership of the sector as a whole, in this case, the ports industry. SPSS is statistical software for the analysis of qualitative data. We define supply chains as a system of organisations, people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer. References Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16, 268–281. Adger, W.N. and Kelly, M., 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4, 253–266. Becker, A., et al., 2012. Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Climatic change, 110, 5– 29. Blaikie, P., et al., 1994. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London: Routledge. Brickman, C. and Ungerman, D., 2008. Climate change and supply chain management. The McKinsey quarterly, July, 2175. Brooks, B.P., 2007. Mapping the risky decision space of rock lobster fishermen. International journal of risk assessment and management, 7 (2), 248–262. Brooks, B.P., 2008. The natural selection of organizational and safety culture within a Small to Medium Sized Enterprise (SME). Journal of safety research, 39, 73–85. Burnley, I. and Murphy, P., 2004. Sea change: movement from metropolitan to Arcadian Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Carter, T., Hulme, M., and Viner, D. eds., 1999. Representing uncertainty in climate change scenarios and impact studies. Proceedings of the ECLAT-2 Helsinki workshop, 14–16 April 1999. Norwich: Climatic Research Unit, 128. Chapin III, F.S., et al., 2006. Building resilience and adaptation to manage Arctic change. Ambio, 35 (4), 198–202. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1042 M. Nursey-Bray et al. Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., and Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social science quarterly, 84, 242–261. Downing, T.E. and Patwardhan, A., 2004. Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation. In: B. Lim and E. Spanger-Siegfried, eds. Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies, and measures. Cambridge University Press, Chapter 3. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global environmental change, 16, 253–267. Füssel, H.-M., 2007. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global environmental change, 17, 155–167. Gallagher, R. and Lee, T., 2006. Adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation: a brief review. Progress in biophysical and molecular biology, 92 (1), 119–131. Giannakopoulous, C. and Psiloglou, B.E., 2006. Trends in energy load demand for Athens, Greece: weather and non-weather related factors. Climate research, 31, 97–108. Glavovic, B., 2008. Sustainable coastal communities in the age of coastal storms: reconceptualising coastal planning as ‘new’ naval architecture. Journal of coastal conservation, 12, 125–134. Gurran, N., Hamin, E., and Norman, B., 2008. Planning for climate change: leading practice principles and models for sea change communities in Coastal Australia. Prepared for the National Sea Change Task Force, The University of Sydney, Faculty of Architecture. Ha-Duong, M., et al., 2007. Uncertainty management in the IPCC: agreeing to disagree. Global environmental change, 17 (1), 8–11. Haines, A., Kovats, R.S., and Campbell, C., 2006, Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability and public health. Public health, 120, 585–596. Hallegatte, S., 2007. The use of synthetic hurricane tracks in risk analysis and climate change damage assessment. Journal of applied meteorology and climatology, 46 (11), 1956–1966. Hallegatte, S., 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global environmental change, 19, 240–247. Hallegatte, S., et al., 2008. Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise, and storm surge risk in port cities: a case study on Copenhagen. OECD Environment Working Paper 3. Paris: OECD. Hallegatte, S., et al., 2011. Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise and storm surge risk in port cities: a case study on Copenhagen. Climatic change, 104, 113–137. Hamin, E.M. and Gurran, N., 2009. Urban form and climate change: balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat international, 33, 238–245. Harris, L.G. and Tyrrell, M.C., 2001. Changing community states in the Gulf of Maine: synergism between invaders, overfishing and climate change. Biological invasions, 3, 9–21. Hawkes, P., et al., 2010. Waterborne transport, ports and navigation: climate change drivers, impacts and mitigation. PIANC MMX congress, Liverpool. Hellman, J.J., et al., 2008. Five potential consequence of climate change for invasive species. Conservation biology, 22 (3), 534–543. Hewitt, C.L., 2003. Marine biosecurity issues in the world oceans: global activities and Australian directions. Ocean yearbook, 17, 193–212. Hewitt, C.L., 2009. Marine environmental issues for maritime industries. In: Maritime transport industry forum, 16–17 February, summary of proceedings. Launceston, Tasmania: Maritime Transport Centre, AMC. Hewitt, C.L., et al., 2011. The relative biofouling risk posed by vessels for translocating marine species of concern into Australia. A final report for the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. Commissioned by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. Hobday, A.J., Poloczanska, E.S., and Matear, R.J., eds. 2008. Implications of climate change for Australian fisheries and aquaculture: a preliminary assessment. Report to the Department of Climate Change, Canberra. Hoerster, K., 2011. Impact of individual, environmental, and policy level factors on healthcare utilization among United States farmworkers. Thesis (PhD). University of California. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, 2009. Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. Parliamentary Paper Number: 222/2009. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1043 Infrastructure Australia, 2011. National Ports Strategy, Infrastructure for an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable future. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881. IPCC, 2007a. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, eds. Cambridge University Press, 996. IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger, eds. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Islam, N., 2007. ‘Their health and their pockets’: strategic decision-making processes of worker centres in the public health arena. Thesis (PhD). Columbia University. Jones, R., 2001. An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climate change impacts assessments. Natural hazards, 23, 197–230. Kalkstein, L.S. and Smoyer, K.E., 1993. The impact of climate change on human health: some international implications. Experientia, 49, 969–979. Kinney, P., 2008. Climate change, air quality and human health. American journal of preventive medicine, 35 (5), 459–467. Klein, R.J.T. and Nicholls, R.J., 1999. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio, 28, 182–187. Koppe, C., et al., 2002. Heat waves: risks and responses. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe. LCCP, 2002. The impacts of climate change in London. Technical Report. London. Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J., and Hewitt, C.L., 2004. Management of exogenous threats to Antarctica and sub-Antarctic Islands: balancing risks from TBT and non-indigenous marine organisms. Marine pollution bulletin, 49 (11–12), 999–1005. Martens, W.J., 1998, Climate change, thermal stress and mortality changes. Social science medicine, 46 (3), 331–344. Maudgalya, T., Genaidy, A., and Shell, R., 2008. Productivity-quality-costs-safety: a sustained approach to competitive advantage – a systematic review of the National Safety Council’s case studies in safety and productivity. Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing, 18 (2), 152–179. McMichael, A.J., Woodruff, R.R., and Hales, S., 2006. Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet, 367, 859–869. Meyrick, S., 2009. National Port Strategy: understanding the imperatives. GHD Australia. Nicholls, R.J., 1995. Coastal megacities and climate change. GeoJournal, 37, 369–379. Nicholls, R.J., et al., 2007a. Ranking port cities with high exposure and vulnerability to climate extremes: exposure estimates [online]. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 1, OECD publishing. Available from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org [Accessed 14 January 2012]. Nicholls R.J., et al., 2007b. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: M.L.Parry, O.F.Canziani, J.P.Palutikof, P.J.van der Linden, and C.E.Hanson, eds. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.: Cambridge University Press, 315–356. Nikolic, Z., 2009. Greener supplies. MHD supply chain solutions, May–June, 34–37. Nordhaus, WD., 2006. The economics of hurricanes in the United States. [online] Available from: http://www.econ.yale.edu/*nordhaus/homepage/recent_stuff.html [Accessed 14 September 2011]. Nursey-Bray, M. and Shaw, J., 2010. Australia, climate change and the sea change phenomenon. The international journal of environmental, cultural, social and economic sustainability, 6 (1), 67–80. Nursey-Bray, M. and SGS Consulting, 2007. Climate change and coastal management: a literature review. Tasmania: SGS and Clarence Council Publication. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 1044 M. Nursey-Bray et al. O’Brien, K., et al., 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global environmental change, 14, 303–313. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., 2007. Global change and marine communities: alien species and climate change. Marine pollution bulletin, 55 (7–9), 342–352. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. and Savini, D., 2003. Biological invasions as a component of global change in stressed marine ecosystems. Marine pollution bulletin, 46 (5), 542–551. Oxfam International, 2009. Suffering the science: climate change, people, and poverty. Oxfam briefing paper 130. London: Oxfam International. Patrinos, A. and Bamzai, A., 2005. Policy needs robust climate science. Nature, 438, 285. Pecl, G., et al., 2010. The east coast Tasmanian rock lobster fishery – vulnerability to climate change impacts and adaptation response options. Report to the Department of Climate Change, Australia. Petit, M., 2005. Scientific uncertainties and climate risks. Comptes rendus geoscience, 337, 393–398. Ports Australia, 2010. [online]. Available from: http://www.portsaustralia.com.au/port_ industry/ [Accessed 4 September 2011]. Port of Brisbane, 2010. Brisbane land use plan – codes. Brisbane, Australia. Port of Enfield, 2008. Submission to the Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts: inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities. Port of Melbourne, 2008. Submission to the Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts: inquiry into Climate Change Impact on Coastal Communities. Quinlan, M. and Bohle, P., 2004. Contingent work and occupational safety. In: M.Baring and M.Frone, eds. The psychology of workplace safety. Washington: American Psychological Association, 81–105. Ruiz, G.M. and Hewitt, C.L., 2008. Latitudinal patterns of biological invasions in marine ecosystems: a polar perspective. In: I. Krupnik, M.A. Lang and S.E. Miller, eds. Smithsonian at the Poles: contributions to International Polar Year Science. Proceedings of Smithsonian at the Poles symposium, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 3–4 May 2007. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 347–358. Samanek, A., et al., 2006. Estimates of beneficial and harmful sun exposure times during the year for major Australian population centres. Medical journal of Australia, 184 (7), 338– 341. Schulte, P. and Chun, H.K., 2009. Climate change and occupational safety and health: establishing a preliminary framework. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 6 (9), 542–554. Shea, K., et al., 2008. Climate change and allergic disease. Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 122 (3), 443–453. Simpson, R., 2009. Optimising the distribution centre what it means to be efficient in a carbon trading economy. MHD supply chain solutions, May–June, 38–39. Smit, B. and Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16, 282–292. Sox First Management and Compliance, 2009. Climate change chain of command. Sox First Management and Compliance [online]. Available from: http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/ climate_change_chain_of_command.php [Accessed 15 July 2011]. Stachowicz, J.J., et al., 2002. Linking climate change and biological invasions: ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (24), 15497–15500. Steffen, W., 2009. Climate change 2009: faster change & more serious risks. Department of Climate Change, Australia [online]. Available from: http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wpcontent/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risksfinal.pdf [Accessed 17 May 2011]. Stern, N., eds. 2006. Stern Review on the economics of climate change. London: HM Treasury, 170. Vendentorren, S. and Empereur-Bissonnet, P., 2005. Health impacts of the 2003 heatwave in France. In: W. Kirch, B. Menne and R. Bertollini, eds. Extreme weather events and public health responses. Paris: Springer, 81–88. Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 09:55 13 February 2014 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1045 Westmacott, S., 2001. Developing decision support systems for integrated coastal management in the tropics: is the ICM decision-making environment too complex for the development of a useable and useful DSS? Journal of environmental management, 62 (1), 55–74. Williams, S.E., et al., 2008. Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLOS biology, 6, 2621–2626. Wilson, K.J., et al., 2004. Shipping in the Canadian Arctic: other possible climate change scenarios. Proceedings of the geoscience and remote sensing symposium 20–24 September 2004, Anchorage, Alaska. IGARSS 2004. IEEE International, 3, 1853–1856. Wisner, B., et al., 2004. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Yohe, G., Andronova, N., and Schlesinger, M., 2004. To hedge or not against an uncertain climate. Science, 306, 416–417.