Modelling the impacts of climate change

on an eroding coast over the 21st Century

�

Mark Dickson, Mike Walkden and Jim Hall

2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 103

 Modelling the impacts of climate
change on an eroding coast over the
21st Century

Dr Mark Dickson1, Dr Mike Walkden2

and Professor Jim Hall3
1
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
PO Box 8602, Riccarton, Christchurch, New Zealand
2&3
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
and
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Cassie Building,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 103

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

Manuscript submitted to Climatic Change

2
Summary

A numerical model detailing the functioning and emergent behaviour of an eroding coastal
system is described. Model output from a 50-km study region centred on the soft-rock shore of
northeast Norfolk, was verified through comparison with cliff recession rates that were extracted
from historical maps spanning more than a century. Predictions were then made for the period
2000 to 2100 under combined climatic change and management scenarios. For the scenarios
evaluated, the model was relatively insensitive to increases in offshore wave height and
moderately sensitive to changes in wave direction, but the most important effects were associated
with accelerated sea-level rise (SLR). In contrast to predictions made using a modified version of
the Bruun rule, the systems model predicted a complex suite of responses to SLR. For instance,
on some sectors of coast, whereas the Bruun rule predicted accelerated recession under SLR, the
systems model actually predicted progradation owing to the delivery of sediment from eroding
coasts up-drift. By contrast, on coasts where beaches are underlain by shore platforms, both the
Bruun-rule and the systems model predicted accelerated recession rates. However, explicit
consideration of the interaction between beach and shore platform within the systems model
indicates that these coasts have a broader range of responses and lower overall vulnerability to
SLR than predicted by the Bruun-rule.

1 Introduction

Rapid coastal cliff recession is occurring along many soft rock shorelines in the UK and
elsewhere. This presents a problem for coastal managers as traditional engineering solutions are
expensive and may be unsustainable if they continually force coastal systems from their natural
state, whereas decisions to take no action result in losses of coastal land and properties. The UK
has around 2300 km of artificially protected coast, the longest in Europe, but despite this it has
been estimated that more than 3000 km of UK coasts are currently eroding (EUROSION, 2004).
This problem is likely to be compounded by climatic change through accelerated SLR and
perhaps changing wave climates (Bray and Hooke, 1987). It is also apparent that climate change
will require an increase in the size of many coastal defences and a deepening of their foundations.
In England and Wales it has been estimated that such changes will increase the annual cost of
coastal defence by 150% to 400% by the 2080s (Burgess and Townend, 2004). The national UK
economic cost of coastal erosion is about £14.4 M/year, but it has been estimated that climatic
change will raise this figure to £126 M/year by the 2080s (Evans et al, 2004).

Given the economic and societal impacts of climatic change on eroding coasts, there is a need for
techniques and tools which can be used to predict erosion and quantify the associated risks. At
present few such tools exist. On sandy coasts the Bruun rule (Bruun, 1962) has been widely used
to predict future erosion due to rising sea-levels. The rule states that, with other factors held
constant, an active beach will displace its equilibrium profile form upwards and landwards in
response to rising sea-levels, causing erosion and deposition of equal volumes on the upper and
lower shorefaces respectively. The simplicity of the Bruun rule limits its application to quite
specific circumstances, although Pilkey and Cooper (2004) noted that this requirement has not
always been observed. Of particular importance is that the Bruun rule does not consider the
effect of cross- or long-shore gradients in sediment transport, and other sediment sources and
sinks (Stive, 2004). Zhang et al. (2004) considered such limitations in a study of sandy beaches
along the U.S. East Coast and concluded that approximately one-third of beaches were suitable
for assessment using the Bruun rule. Of those, Bruun predictions made using historical tide
gauge records agreed well with historical shoreline erosion rates, and confirmed that beach
erosion rates are likely to be about two orders of magnitude greater than rates of SLR. Despite

3
such advocacy, Cooper and Pilkey (2004) argue that the Bruun rule is an overly simplistic model
of the response of shorelines to SLR, and should be abandoned.

The Bruun rule was derived for sandy coasts, but Bray and Hooke (1997) used it to examine the
possible impacts of changing SLR on eroding cliffs by modifying it to include sediment exchange
(e.g. through cross- and long-shore transport). This method was compared to others including
historical trend analysis and a shore platform geometrical model (Sunamura, 1992). Of these they
concluded that the modified Bruun rule appeared especially suitable for testing the sensitivity of
eroding cliffs to future climate change. The rule indicated that SLR could increase cliff recession
rates on the south coast of England by 22% to 133% by 2050. The rule further implied that
erosion rates would be highly site specific, with less erosion predicted for cliffs that release
sediments that bulk beaches, and higher sensitivity observed in energetic open coast
environments than in sheltered embayments.

Stive (2004) cautioned that coastal response to SLR is a complex morphodynamic issue, and
many feedbacks are to be expected beyond the simple profile translation envisaged by the Bruun
rule. Similarly, Bray and Hooke (1997) commented that the complexity of cliff, beach and
hydraulic processes that interact over variable timescales in producing recession have so far
forestalled the development of numerical, process-based models on eroding consolidated coasts.

In this paper we consider the issue of SLR and soft shore recession using the process-based Soft
Cliff and Platform Erosion model (SCAPE), which has been described by Walkden and Hall
(2002, 2005, in review). SCAPE is a geomorphic numerical model intended to represent the main
processes that cause the shape of an eroding shore to emerge and develop. The model system
includes representations of wave transformation, sediment transport, and the development of cliff,
talus, shore platform and beach. Processes are represented in relatively simple terms, with
attention instead focussed on interaction between parts and the emergence of system properties.
The breadth of the coastal system described, coupled with short run-times, enables predictions
over timescales of decades to centuries and spatial scales of tens of kilometres.

Walkden and Hall (2005) used SCAPE to explore the relationship between rates of sea level rise
and cliff toe retreat. Although their models were based on a specific site, the Naze peninsula in
Essex, UK, they were intended to be generally representative of shores of soft rock overlain by a
sparse beach. They predicted a relatively linear relationship for rates of sea level rise in the range
from 0.5 mm/A to 10 mm/A (the maximum value studied). The sensitivity of recession rate to
SLR was approximately one-fifth of Bruun-based estimates, due, in part, to the adaptation of
SCAPE foreshore profiles to the new rates of sea-level rise.

The main objectives of the present paper are to model the broad characteristics of the coastal
system of northeast Norfolk given a variety of combined climate-change and management
scenarios. The application is specific to the site geomorphology, but in many respects the study is
typical of soft eroding shorelines and we expect the analysis presented below to provide insights
that will be applicable to similar coasts. Particular effort is placed on providing quantified
predictions of future cliff retreat, because the model is validated on the basis of comparisons of
model erosion against rates of shoreline retreat measured from historical maps. Detailed
validation of other aspects of the model system has not been attempted, but model behaviour is
discussed to assist understanding of possible responses of other aspects of eroding coastal
systems, including changing beach volumes and sediment fluxes.

4
2 Site description and conceptual model

For the present study SCAPE was implemented along approximately 50 km of coast between
Blakeney Spit and Winterton Ness in northeast Norfolk (Figure 1). This coast is exposed to
waves generated within the North Sea from directions between approximately 330ºN and 120ºN,
but the largest waves arrive from the North through to the East where fetch lengths exceed 500
km, and the most frequent waves are from the northwest (Figure 1). The coast features an almost
continuous line of cliffs between Weybourne in the north, where cliffs are composed of relatively
resistant chalk overlain by glacial-tills, and Happisburgh/Eccles in the south where they are
composed of less resistant glacial-tills. The transition from predominantly chalk to till in the
cliff-toe occurs between Weybourne and Cromer, and roughly coincides with the location of a
well-documented divide in the direction of longshore sediment transport (Vincent, 1979; Clayton,
1989; Chang and Evans, 1992). In modelling terms the drift divide is advantageous because the
direction of sediment transport is mainly westward from about Sheringham, and southeast from
about Cromer, such that there is a net sediment flux from the model at both Blakeney and
Winterton (Figure 1). The drift divide and contact between chalk and till lithologies also
approximately coincides with a change in the size of beach sediments (Chang and Evans, 1992).
Beaches south of Cromer are predominantly sandy with pebbles present in varying proportions
whereas beaches in front of the north-facing chalk cliffs have an increasingly high proportion of
pebbles from Cromer through to Weybourne where beaches are composed largely of pebbles.

5
Figure 1. Map showing study area, the model grid, offshore wave rose, generalized
geomorphology, and an approximate chronology of major engineering works.

On the basis of historical maps and photographs as well as records of landmarks and villages that
have succumbed to eroding cliffs, Clayton (1989) estimated that the glacial-till cliffs have
retreated at rates averaging around 1 m per year over some 5000 years, whereas the chalk cliffs
have retreated somewhat slower. Erosion of soft cliff slopes occurs largely through processes of
mass movement that result from some combination of critical slope angles and stresses within
rock masses. In this respect erosion is sensitive both to marine processes which can undercut and
steepen cliffs, as well as the interplay between the geotechnical properties of the cliff and
subaerial erosion processes (Lee and Clark, 2002). It is apparent that climatic change may alter
the incidence of mass movement processes, for instance, through increasing the frequency of
heavy rainfall events (Bray and Hooke, 1997). However, ultimately the primary controls on long
term rates of cliff retreat must be the gradient and elevation (relative to sea level) of the shore

6
platform and beach, as these control the ability of waves to clear fallen debris and then attack and
destabilise the cliff toe. In the absence of profile lowering the poorly consolidated cliffs of
northeast Norfolk would rapidly grade by weathering processes toward the angle of repose. That
rapid cliff retreat has persisted over recent centuries (Cambers, 1976), and probably over the
whole of the Holocene (Clayton, 1989), can be attributed to the ongoing lowering and inundation
of shore platforms during this period due to erosion and rising sea levels.

The depositional features of Blakeney Spit and Winterton Ness occur adjacent to the northern and
southern ends of the cliffs and provide convenient boundary regions for the model. Blakeney Spit
is a large gravel barrier, in contrast to Winterton Ness and neighbouring dunes, which are
composed of sand. Offshore of the study region the seafloor morphology is complex with many
shallow shoals and banks, including the sizeable Haisborough Sands. These features have a very
marked impact on the nearshore wave climate (Kuang and Stansby, 2004) and it is likely that they
influence shoreline morphology. Much remains to be learned about possible relationships
between historical (Holocene) cliff erosion, longshore and offshore sediment transport, and the
evolution of Blakeney Spit and Winterton Ness as well as the offshore banks and shoals.

3 Model set-up

Walkden and Hall (2005) have provided a detailed description of SCAPE, including numerical
representation of processes and model behaviour. In the present paper a particular construction
and application of SCAPE is described and the assumptions and limitations of this setup are
outlined.

SCAPE is physics-based, but processes are represented in relatively simple terms in order to
allow the representation of a ‘whole’ system and to minimise run times. This also eases
interpretation of the model’s emergent properties, and therefore to some extent those of the site
being modelled. The model contains primary modules that represent wave transformation using
linear wave theory, beach evolution using the CERC equation and the ‘One-Line’ approach
(Pelnard-Considere, 1956) and in-situ shore profile development (Walkden and Hall, 2005).
Secondary modules describe talus removal and offshore sediment transport, talus development
and offshore storage (Walkden and Hall, in review).

For the present study the model timestep was set to one tidal cycle. At each timestep forcing
conditions were extracted from time-series of wave and tidal records. The wave record was
hindcast from 23 years of wind data and extended to 1000 years. This long record was
constructed from month segments sampled from the original 23 year file, preserving seasonality.
Extremes in the record were resampled from a fitted distribution (HR Wallingford, 2002a). The
length of this time series was dictated by the long run times needed for dynamic equilibrium
forms to emerge in the model (see for example Walkden and Hall, 2005). Records of tidal levels
were available for a 13-year period at Cromer. These were extended to 1000 years by
concatenating monthly segments, but preserving seasonality. Extreme values were re-sampled
from a distribution that was constructed using estimates of extreme water levels provided by
Dixon and Tawn (1997). The levels were then transferred to Mundesley, which is closer to the
centre of the study area.

The starting condition of each model section was arbitrarily taken to be a vertical cliff plunging
into deep water. Through simulation of many thousands of years of shore erosion (recycling
wave and tide files), profiles gradually emerged at each model section (Figure 2). Their shapes
ultimately depended on the cross-shore distribution of erosion, the size of beach (if present), tidal

7
characteristics, material strength, rate of SLR and the incident wave conditions. Model erosion is
controlled by feedback through the form of the beach and platform. Small beaches and steep
platforms tend to allow higher erosion.

Figure 2. Evolution of model shore profiles over time (after Walkden and Hall, 2005, Fig. 10).

SCAPE models develop towards dynamic equilibrium in response to hydrodynamic loading. In

the present study dynamic equilibrium was achieved in two stages. Initial equilibrium shore
profiles and beach volumes were produced assuming shore-parallel isobaths, as well as a rate of
SLR of 2 mm yr-1 that was taken to represent general millennial-scale characteristics of the
region. In the second stage a series of nearshore wave transfer functions were used to account for
the offshore topography of the region. Wave conditions at these locations were calculated by
Kuang and Stansby (2004) using the TOMOWAC model (part of the EDF TELEMAC suite),
which accounts for shoaling, refraction by variable depth and currents, generation by wind,
dissipation by whitecapping, bed friction and depth-limited breaking and wave-wave energy
transfers, but not diffraction. The wave model domain extended 30 km from the coast of East
Anglia with an alongshore extent that included approximately 70 km south and 60 km east of the
SCAPE model, accounting for wave propagation from all significant directions (see also Hall et
al, 2005). This model was emulated with a series of nearshore transfer functions spaced along the
SCAPE grid. SCAPE was then run again to re-establish its dynamic equilibrium profile forms
and beach volumes. Once this was achieved the model was assumed to be simulating the shore in
a natural, un-engineered, state (for a fuller description of these stages of model preparation see
Walken and Hall, under review).

The effects of major historical engineering interventions from the mid 19th Century to the present
were represented with perturbations to the dynamic equilibrium of the model. A time-line of
these works, ascertained from reports, historical photographs, maps and local knowledge, is
shown schematically in Figure 1. The figure indicates that the major settlements of Sheringham,
Cromer and Mundesley have been protected with groynes and seawalls since the latter part of the
19th Century, with Overstrand similarly protected excepting the construction of a seawall and
additional groynes in early and mid 20th Century. South of Mundesley most major engineering
works occurred between 1950 and 2000, with construction mainly comprising groynes and
pallisades.

8
In SCAPE seawalls prevent cliff toe retreat, but do not stop shore platform lowering, groynes
reduce longshore sediment transport, except when the beach extends further seaward than the
structure, and palisades reduce wave heights. There was little evidence upon which to base
anything more than first-order approximations of the effectiveness of the groynes and palisades.
Storm waves were observed passing through the palisades, and experienced one-line beach
modellers were consulted on standard practice and it was decided that factors of 0.5 should be
used in each case (i.e. the groynes and palisades halved sediment transport and wave heights
respectively).

After simulating the effect of engineering construction between the later part of the 1800s and
2000, model behaviour was compared with historical recession data measured from Ordinance
Survey maps. Once a satisfactory validation was achieved (see below, section 5.1), the model
was run under combined climate-change and management scenarios for the 21st century.

4 Scenarios

Three scenarios of 21st century climate change were developed, representing low,
medium and high change. They comprised modifications to the ‘present day’ conditions
of wave height, wave direction and rate of sea-level rise. Scenarios were also developed
to explore the range of possible coastal management approaches from abandonment to
total defence. All scenarios are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Climate-change and management scenarios used in SCAPE models

Climate-change scenarios (2000-2100)

Sea-Level Rise
Low 0.2m higher by 2100 (no change)
Medium 0.45m higher by 2100
High 1.2m higher by 2100

Offshore wave conditions

Low no change
Medium 7% increase in winter wave height by 2100
High 10% increase in winter wave height by 2100
High + High, plus clockwise rotation of wave rose (10º)
High - High, plus anticlockwise rotation of wave rose (10º)

Management scenarios (2000-2100)

1 Defend the whole coastline (100% of cliffed coast defended)

2 Maintain existing defences (71% of cliffed coast defended)
3 Managed retreat 1 (34% of cliffed coast defended)
by 2030 structures removed from small towns

9
 4 Managed retreat 2 (16% of cliffed coast defended)
by 2030 structures removed from larger towns/industry
(i.e. Overstrand, Mundesley, Bacton Gas Terminal)
5 Remove defences (0% of cliffed coast defended)

The climate scenarios are partly based on work by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC, Church et al., 2001) and UK Climate Impacts Programme
(UKCIP02, Hulme et al., 2002). The IPCC developed a range of emissions scenarios
based on four views of global development over the 21st century. UKCIP02 selected one
emissions scenario for each of the IPCC storylines, and used them as the basis of four
alternative climate change scenarios for the UK, named Low Emissions, Medium-Low
Emissions, Medium-High Emissions and High Emissions. The UK Met Office Hadley
Centre then ran coupled ocean-atmosphere models (HadCM3, HadAM3H, HadRM3) for
each of these scenarios.

Measurements from tide gauges around the world indicate that global sea level has risen
over the twentieth century at rates of 1.5 to 2 mm yr-1 (Miller and Douglas, 2004).
Predictions under IPCC Third Assessment Report scenarios indicate that by the 2080s,
depending on emissions scenarios, global average sea level will have exceeded present
day levels by between 90 and 690 mm (e.g. Church et al. 2001; Hulme et al. 2002).
Relative sea-levels around the British Isles are sensitive to variability in isostatic
readjustment following the Holocene deglaciation with central and western Scotland
uplifting relative to sea level at 1.2 mm yr-1, in contrast to parts of southeast England that
are subsiding at rates of 0.5 to 1.1 mm yr-1 (Shennan and Horton, 2002). Taking such
land movements into account, UKCIP02 scenarios predict that by the 2080s, depending
on emissions scenarios, relative sea level may be between 20 mm below and 580 mm
above the current level in South West Scotland and between 260 and 860 mm above the
current level in South East England (Hulme et al. 2002).

All three SLR scenarios used in SCAPE modelling (Figure 3) included a regional
subsidence rate of 0.7 mm yr-1 (Shennan and Horton, 2002). The ‘low’ scenario of
relative SLR represented no anthropogenic influence, i.e. a continuation of the recent
historic rate of 2 mm yr-1. The ‘medium’ scenario follows the UKCIP02 medium-high
scenario and results in a 21st century increase of 0.45 m. The ‘high’ scenario is based on
the IPCC high limit but adds a regional sensitivity value of 50% to allow for spatial
variability in thermal expansion (see Gregory et al., 2001). This scenario results in an
increase in sea level of 1.2 m by 2100 over the 21st century.

10
Figure 3. SLR scenarios used in model sensitivity testing.

Owing to the uncertain nature of wave predictions, model sensitivity to a range of

possible future conditions was explored. Wave heights were unchanged in the ‘low’
scenario, whereas in the ‘medium’ and ‘high’ scenarios offshore winter wave heights
were increased up to a maximum of 7% and 10% respectively by 2100. These increases
were applied gradually, and linearly, over the century to avoid an unrealistic step-change.
In addition the scenarios included +10º (clockwise) and –10 º (anticlockwise) rotations of
the offshore wave rose. Potential changes to storm surge conditions and wave period
were not considered.

Management scenarios (Table 1) ranged between a highly artificial state in which the
whole coast was permanently protected with a seawall (Scenario 1), through to full
abandonment where all structures were removed at year 2000 (Scenario 2). Under more
realistic scenarios it was assumed that some form of coastal defence (seawall, groynes, or
palisades) was maintained along about 71% (the current state, Scenario 3), 34% (Scenario
4), and 16% (Scenario 5) of the cliffed coast. Where structures were removed, this was
assumed to happen in a realistic manner, through managed retreat, i.e. structures were
removed first from areas with the lowest economic value, and structures were removed at the end
of their expected lives, which is generally before 2030.

5 Results: model calibration, validation and predictions

The model conditions at the start of the validation comprised parameters that were calibrated or
emergent (as outlined below). Other parameters were quasi-empirical including cliff height, cliff
angle, rock composition, the initial coastline and the shape of offshore contours. All of these were

11
based on datasets or maps, but some averaging and extrapolation was necessary to generate
appropriate data for the model grid and to specify historic conditions.

In SCAPE in-situ rock strength (R) is treated as a calibration term that is established by
comparing model recession to observed rates. For this study the variation in rock type near
Cromer necessitated two values for R in order to represent the chalk and glacial-till lithologies.
The calibration process began with a model of the natural, i.e. undeveloped coast. The resistance
values were chosen so that erosion rates approached 1 m yr-1 around Cromer. Although R was
constant for the glacial till, an alongshore gradient in erosion rate emerged south of Cromer (see
Figure 4) due to changes in factors such as wave conditions, local sediment transport, beach
volume, and profile shape. By contrast, lesser erosion rates in the vicinity of Sheringham and
Weybourne were largely attributable to the higher resistance value chosen to represent chalk
within the cliffs. The alongshore variation of model recession rates is broadly similar to that
implied in previous conceptual models (e.g. Clayton, 1989).

Figure 4. Alongshore recession rates from model runs conducted on a ‘natural’ un-engineered
coastline.

The second calibration term is the coefficient of longshore sediment transport in the CERC
equation, which was set at 0.77 (the upper limit of the range recommended by Hanson and Kraus,
1989) for all model sections, on the basis of previous studies of longshore sediment transport on
this coast (HR Wallingford, 2002b, Walkden and Hall, under review). Additional model
parameters included representations of the shape of the 15 m isobath and an approximation of the
initial, smooth (un-engineered) shoreline plan shape.

12
5.1 Model validation

Although the magnitudes of both cliff erosion rate and along-shore sediment transport are set
during calibration, their alongshore variation can be examined to test model performance.
Confidence in model behaviour was also build on its ability to represent beach volumes and shore
platform profile shapes. Model longshore sediment transport diverged between Cromer and
Weybourne, as has been suggested in a number of studies of the region (e.g. Vincent, 1979; HR
Wallingford, 2002b), and increased southward to the Happisburgh area, with the magnitude of
rates being broadly similar to those calculated elsewhere (Clayton 1989, HR Wallingford, 2002b).
South of Happisburgh rates of sediment transport decreased and the model predicted ongoing
deposition of material in the area between Eccles and Winterton Ness under natural conditions.
Although not an integral part of the present study, this behaviour appears consistent with the
historic growth of sand-dunes in this area (Posford Haskoning, 2003). In the model the reduction
in sediment transport potential in this area is induced by changes in shoreline wave activity,
caused by offshore sand features. Hence, one could speculate possible associations between
long-term deposition from Eccles to Winterton, the development of protruding features such as
Winterton Ness, delivery of material offshore to shoals and banks, and resulting feedback through
modification of the wave climate. Such speculation, however, would need to be reconciled with
observations over the timescale of decades that imply that onshore-offshore sediment movements
exert a more important control over ness evolution than longshore transport (Cox and Möller,
2002).

Emergent model shore profiles were compared to bathymetric surveys and to hydrographic
charts. In general, model profiles are somewhat shallow. Several reasons may contribute to this
shortcoming. First, the rate of SLR over the Holocene is represented as a constant 2 mm yr-1.
Although this is appropriate for recent millennia, it underestimates depths of inundation earlier in
the Holocene. Second, the model does not account for shore erosion during pre-Holocene
highstands when sea-levels were similar to those of the present-day. Third, the model does not
represent tidal currents, which are known to be strong in the vicinity of northeast Norfolk (HR
Wallingford, 2002a) and may, over an extended period, contribute to down-wearing of shore
profiles. Despite this short-coming the alongshore variability in model profiles are broadly
comparable with that observed in nature. In particular, profiles are steeper in the north where
more resistant chalk cliffs occur, and most gently sloping in the convex area of coast that
approximately coincides with Foulness, which is an area of shallower water where historical
erosion rates have been relatively high (Figure 1).

The principal source of model confidence was the accuracy of model recession rates over the
whole period for which records are available (117 years). Figure 5 compares model cliff-toe
recession rates with historical rates extracted from digitised Ordinance Survey maps (complete
coverage of the study area was realised in 1885/6, 1950/1, and 2002). The cliff-toe was digitised
and differences in shoreline positions between the three epochs were extracted at a regular
spacing of 100 m along the coast. Plan-shape annual recession rates were then calculated and a
moving average obtained across 1500 m of coast. Despite the uncertainty inherent within
measured data and the highly abstracted representation of reality, SCAPE produces erosion rates
that are similar to measured rates over the 117-year validation period.

13
Figure 5. Comparison of SCAPE model recession rates with recession rates measured from
historical Ordinance Survey maps over three eras, 1885-1907, 1907-1950 and 1950-2002.
The model performs well over the region of cliffed coast (solid black line), but there is
more uncertainty in the boundary regions where unconsolidated coasts occur.

Less confidence could be established close to the model boundaries (south of Eccles 0-12 km,
west of Weybourne 45-50 km) where cliffs are replaced by low-lying unconsolidated landforms.
For these regions little data are available with which to compare model predictions, but Figure 5
presents a comparison of the mean high water level represented on Ordinance Survey maps with
the still water level output from SCAPE. This region lacks the stabilising feedback present in the
centre of the model and further work is required to improve the description of interactions along
unconsolidated coasts.

The consequences of combined effects of platform depression, sediment transport patterns, beach
volumes, and increased climatic changes are potentially very important. On the basis of the
results illustrated in Figure 5 and the other similarities between the model and the study coast,
predictions of these combined effects were made for the period 2000 to 2100, and are discussed
below.

14
5.2 Predicted impacts of management scenarios, 2000-2100

Figure 6 summarises model cliff toe recession rates over the 21st century under varied
management scenarios assuming no climatic change. Under Scenario 1 in which the whole
coastline is defended with a seawall, no cliff recession occurs (Figure 6a), but beach starvation
accelerates foreshore lowering (Figure 6c). The average level of the shore platform close to the
cliff toe drops in most places by about 2 m below 2000 levels. Such foreshore lowering is less
severe under Scenario 2, which represents a continuation of current management practices, as
erosion of between 80 and 100 m between defended towns furnishes beaches with sediments that
protect underlying shore platforms. As a result shore platform levels on undefended coasts are
predicted to remain similar to their current relative elevation in 2100, whereas in defended
locations platform levels will continue to lower, but generally at a less rapid rate than under
Scenario 1.

Figure 6. Predicted alongshore recession between 2000 and 2100 resulting from varied coastal
management. (a) Total cliff recession, (b) recession distance under the current

15
 management scenario at 25-year intervals, (c) the level of the shore platform in 2100
relative to its 2000 level.

Under current management practices (Scenario 2) the coast between Trimmingham and
Mundesley and between Mundesley and Bacton benefits from beach materials passing from the
north and as a consequence retreats at about half the rate of other areas. The rapidly eroding
coast around Happisburgh receives some benefit from sediment arriving from the north, but this
may not be sufficient to compensate for the fact that collapse of structures during the 1990s
exposed a coast that had previously been pushed far from its natural state, and which is
attempting to retain an equilibrium profile by retreating at a rapid rate. This is apparent in Figure
6b, which shows recession stages, because coastal recession at Happisburgh is predicted to be
most rapid in the first 25 years of the 21st century.

Under Scenario 3 in which structures are retained in front of major towns, Bacton Gas Terminal,
and the low-lying flood-prone land south of Eccles, but removed from all other areas at the end of
their residual lives (approximately 20-30 years), high recession rates occur between
Trimmingham and Mundesley, and between Mundesley and Happisburgh. The sediment that this
releases reduces recession near Happisburgh by approximately 20 to 30 m. It is also significant
that some proportion of this released material accumulates in beaches south of Happisburgh (i.e.
the low-lying flood-risk land), and while this extra sediment has relatively little influence on rates
of platform lowering (Figure 6), SCAPE predicts that under Scenario 3 about 45 m3/m of
additional sediment would be deposited on beaches south of Happisburgh by 2100.

Under Scenario 4, only the low-lying land and the towns of Cromer and Sheringham remain
protected. At Overstrand and Mundesley long-established defences are removed. These defences
have caused the settlements to protrude from the coastline as slight anthropogenic headlands, and
have led to a relative lowering of the foreshore. The former effect tends to denude the beach, the
latter allows larger waves to attack the cliffs once the seawalls are removed. As a consequence
very high erosion rates (> 120 m) occur at these settlements. As Figure 6 demonstrates, this
rapid recession brings some benefit in a raising of the relative platform level (and therefore cliff-
toe level) as profiles develop toward their dynamic equilibrium forms. Moreover, the erosion of
land at these towns reduces erosion rates between Mundesley and Happisburgh by about one third
(approximately 30 m less erosion over 100 years), although the benefit in terms of reduced rates
of platform lowering is not significant south of Bacton.

Finally, the results of Scenario 5, in which all protection is removed, show comparatively little
additional benefit in terms of reducing erosion rates and rates of platform lowering at other
locations, when compared to Scenario 2. A major reason for this is that a greater portion of the
additional released sediment is moved west by longshore drift.

5.3 Predicted impacts of climatic change, 2000-2100

Prior to assessing the combined impacts of climatic change and management, it is important to
understand the likely impact of climatic changes on the coast in a natural condition. Figure 7a
shows average recession rates under three SLR scenarios over the 21st century from a model in
which it was assumed that no coastal construction had ever taken place. The model predicts a
relatively complex relationship between shoreline recession and SLR. Under these pseudo-
natural conditions recession rates are highest between Cromer and Overstrand and decrease to the
north, where there are more resistant rocks, and south where beach volumes are higher. The

16
medium SLR scenario has a relatively minor effect on recession rates, but high SLR results in
substantial increases (approximately 40%) in recession rates from Overstrand north, moderate
increases between Bacton and Overstrand (approximately 10%), and decreased recession between
Bacton and the southern limit of the cliffs near Eccles on Sea (approximately -10%).

Figure 7. Predicted impact of SLR on an un-engineered coast showing alongshore variation in (a)
cliff recession rate, (b) sediment transport, and (c) beach volume.

The expression for erosion used in SCAPE modelling is sensitive to shore platform slope (see
Walkden and Hall, 2005). As a result of this, and given that shore profile gradients gradually
increase toward the cliff toe (Figure 3), it is to be expected that accelerated rates of SLR will
increase model rates of cliff recession, because higher water levels raise the level of wave attack
to steeper parts of the shore profile. However, as Figure 7a demonstrates, there is considerable
plan-shape variability in the way that profiles in different areas respond to increased SLR due to
the manner in which beach sediments are released and distributed alongshore. Figure 7b shows
that higher rates of SLR increase rates of sediment transport alongshore. However, whereas
sediment transport increases steadily southward toward Bacton, thereafter the rate of sediment
transport becomes steady. This results in sediment deposition and beach growth south of Bacton
(Figure 7c), and therefore lower rates of cliff toe recession. Between Bacton and Overstrand the
gradient of sediment transport is sufficiently large to ensure that much of the sediment eroded
from cliffs is moved alongshore. However, some portion of eroded sediment is retained in larger
beaches, with the result that only moderate increases in erosion rates are observed. By contrast,
north of Overstrand, longshore sediment transport is sufficient to account for the majority of extra

17
sediment derived from cliff erosion. Hence, beach volumes remain relatively small and recession
rates are increased.

The model’s responses to altered wave climate are similarly complex (Figure 8). Little change in
recession rate is predicted when winter offshore wave heights are increased by up to 10% by
2100, but changes in the direction of wave attack have more effect. In general a clockwise
rotation of the offshore wave rose increases sediment transport rates, decreases beach volumes,
and increases erosion rates, whereas an anticlockwise rotation decreases sediment transport rates,
particularly from Overstrand south, increasing beach volumes and generally reducing recession

Figure 8. Predicted impact of high SLR coupled with altered offshore wave conditions on an un-
engineered coast showing alongshore variation in (a) cliff recession rate, (b) sediment
transport, and (c) beach volume.

5.4 Combined climate change and coastal management scenarios

Figure 9 summarises the increase in erosion predicted under various climate change scenarios for
current management conditions (Scenario 2), as well as for the managed-retreat scenarios (3 and
4).

18
Figure 9. Comparison of possible alongshore impacts of climate change on rates of cliff recession
for three management scenarios.

19
The model was generally insensitive to increases in offshore winter wave height. However, under
Scenario 4, increased wave heights caused up to 20 m additional erosion between Bacton and
Happisburgh. The model was more sensitive to changes in offshore wave direction. For instance,
a 10-degree clockwise rotation of the offshore waves typically increased erosion rates at all
locations, whereas a 10-degree anticlockwise rotation decreased erosion rates. This sensitivity
varies alongshore, for example changes in erosion rates tend to be more pronounced in the
vicinity of Trimmingham than further south near Happisburgh.

Figure 9 demonstrates that the behaviour of protected coasts under changed climates was broadly
similar to that of the pseudo-natural coast. For the scenarios tested, high SLR exerts a more
significant impact on erosion rates than do changes in offshore wave conditions. However, these
impacts are most pronounced from Overstrand north where increases in recession rates of 40-60
m occur between 2000 and 2100. By contrast, along the same sector of coast changes in offshore
wave conditions account for changes in erosion of generally less than 10 m. South of Overstrand
increases in erosion rates under high SLR are considerably smaller with typically less than 20 m
extra erosion between 2000 and 2100. This behaviour results from the extra sediment released
from accelerated erosion rates further north, making its way into larger beaches that buffer the
cliff toe from erosion south of Mundesley. This effect is particularly pronounced under Scenario
4 in which structures are removed from much of the cliffed coast. For instance, under this
management scenario, high SLR results in little discernable change in erosion rates between
Bacton and Happisburgh.

5.5 Comparison with Bruun model calculations

In the discussion that follows coastal response to SLR is considered using a comparison of
predictions of accelerated cliff recession rates made using SCAPE and a modified Bruun rule. In
the absence of high quality sediment budget information, the Bruun rule has been applied to
eroding cliffs by assuming that the historical rate of cliff recession represents the net contribution
to the sediment budget, and then estimating the additional recession resulting from accelerated
SLR (Bray and Hooke, 1997). With a further assumption that changes in the net sediment budget
are small over time, Bray and Hooke (1997) modelled the Bruun response on cliffed coasts using
the expression provided by Dean (1991):
L*
R2 = R1 + ( S 2 − S1 )
P( B + h*)

where R1 is historical recession, R2 is future recession, S1 is historic SLR, S2 is future SLR, L* is

the length of active profile, B is cliff height, P is the proportion of sediment sufficiently coarse to
remain in the shore profile, and h* is closure depth. Concepts such as closure depth and the
length of the active profile have been the subject of some consideration and debate (e.g. Nicholls
et al., 1998; Cooper and Pilkey, 2004), and it is clear that uncertainty in the values assigned to
these parameters may give rise to considerable variability in rates of recession predicted with the
Bruun approach. In Table 2, three estimates of Bruun-recession are provided on the basis of a
shallow equilibrium profile (L* = 2200 m and d* = 8 m), intermediate ‘best-guess’ profiles (L*
= 1100 m and d* = 10 m), and steep equilibrium profiles (L* = 600 m and d* = 12.5 m). The
length of active profiles was estimated using bathymetric charts, and a best estimate of closure
depth (approximately 10 m) was attained following the suggestion that 90% of profile change
occurs within a limiting depth of twice the maximum breaking wave height for a five year return
period (see Bray and Hooke, 1997, p458).

20
Table 2 summarises predictions made on the basis of the modified Bruun rule and SCAPE, of the
rate of future shoreline recession at three locations on the northeast Norfolk coast. Historical
recession rates were drawn from SCAPE simulations of an un-engineered coast (Figure 4).
Bruun and SCAPE predictions were made for every SCAPE section, but results are summarised
across three key areas: (a) west of Sherringham to Overstrand, (b) Overstrand to Bacton, and (c)
Bacton to the southern limit of cliffs near Eccles-on-Sea. Under natural conditions prior to
emplacement of structural controls on the coast, these three areas provide a transition from a
convex coast where a divide in longshore transport direction limits beach volumes (Sherringham
to Overstrand), toward coasts further southeast that have fuller beaches derived from sediment
supplied from cliff-erosion up-drift. In Table 2 significant differences are apparent between rates
of recession predicted using the Bruun and SCAPE approaches. The reasons for such differences
are explored below.

Table 2. Comparison of Bruun- and SCAPE-predicted recession rates.

Predicted Av.
Predicted Av. content
retreat
retreat historical Length beach-
rate, rate, retreat Future Historical of active size Av. cliff Closure % %
SCAPE Bruun rate (m/yr, SLR SLR profile sediment height depth Increase Increase
(m/yr) (m/yr) Figure 4) (m/yr) (m/yr) (m) in cliff (m) (m) SCAPE Bruun

SHALLOW PROFILES
Sheringham to
Overstrand 1.51 2.29 1.13 0.012 0.002 2200 0.54 27.07 8 33.63 102.81
Overstrand to
Bacton 1.06 2.09 0.97 0.012 0.002 2200 0.57 26.33 8 9.28 115.91
Bacton to
Eccles-on-Sea 0.59 3.50 0.64 0.012 0.002 2200 0.52 6.8 8 -8.20 446.66
INTERMEDIATE PROFILES (BEST ESTIMATE OF L* AND d*)
Sheringham to
Overstrand 1.51 1.68 1.13 0.012 0.002 1100 0.54 27.07 10 33.63 48.63
Overstrand to
Bacton 1.06 1.50 0.97 0.012 0.002 1100 0.57 26.33 10 9.28 54.76
Bacton to
Eccles-on-Sea 0.59 1.90 0.64 0.012 0.002 1100 0.52 6.8 10 -8.20 196.74
STEEP PROFILES
Sheringham to
Overstrand 1.51 1.41 1.13 0.012 0.002 600 0.54 27.07 12.5 33.63 24.85
Overstrand to
Bacton 1.06 1.24 0.97 0.012 0.002 600 0.57 26.33 12.5 9.28 27.95
Bacton to
Eccles-on-Sea 0.59 1.24 0.64 0.012 0.002 600 0.52 6.8 12.5 -8.20 93.41

6 Discussion

It is generally expected that future climatic changes will increase rates of soft-cliff erosion
through accelerated rates of SLR and possibly altered wave climates (Bray and Hooke, 1997). In
soft rocks, ongoing cliff retreat seems a logical consequence of rising relative sea levels, as SLR
provides a mechanism for continual removal of the detritus that results from cliff erosion and
moves larger waves higher up the profile. But increased erosion rates are accompanied by extra

21
sediment that may bulk beaches at the cliff toe, thereby buffering against further erosion. Hence,
our ability to predict future responses of rapidly eroding cohesive shores under climate change
requires consideration of both the morphodynamics of erosional (i.e. cliffs and shore platforms)
and depositional (i.e. talus and beaches) environments, and yet these two domains have long
remained distinct entities in the coastal literature (Trenhaile, 2004). It is this type of problem that
limits the applicability of simple methods that have to date been employed to study potential
impacts of SLR on eroding coasts (e.g. historical trend analysis, Bruun Rule). In the present
paper we have attempted to overcome this difficulty by employing a complex systems model that
emphasises description of multiple aspects of an eroding coastal system, resultant feedback, and
emergent systems properties.

The future climate at the east coast of the UK is uncertain, so has been described as a series of
scenarios (Table 1). Three relative SLR scenarios were examined from a baseline ‘low’ scenario
that simulates no anthropogenic influence and slowly rising relative sea level of 2 mm yr-1, to
‘medium’ and ‘high’ scenarios that result in total increases in sea-level relative to 2000 of 0.45 m
and 1.2 m respectively by 2100 (See Section 4 and Figure 3). Simple scenarios of future wave
conditions included simulations of no change, as well as linear increases in offshore wave heights
of up to 7% and 10% by 2100 under medium and high scenarios. Sensitivity to wave direction
was investigated by shifting the offshore wave rose clockwise (+10º) and anticlockwise (-10º).
Management scenarios ranged between full protection and no protection of the cliffed coast,
through scenarios in which some form of coastal defence was maintained along about 71% of the
cliffed coast (the current state), and ‘managed retreat’ scenarios in which the proportion of
defended cliffed coast reduced to 34% and 16%.

Several key messages may be drawn from the analysis of these scenarios: (1) erosion rates on
consolidated coasts are sensitive to SLR, but are not a simple linear function of SLR; (2) erosion
rates on the northeast Norfolk coast may be quite insensitive to increased offshore wave heights;
(3) erosion rates are sensitive to changes in offshore wave direction; (4) and spatial variability in
the plan-shape of erosion generally results from changes in patterns of longshore sediment
transport, with the relatively sediment-starved coast north of Overstrand proving less resilient to
climatic change than the coast south of Overstrand where beaches are typically fuller.

6.1 Offshore wave conditions

Under natural and engineered conditions, the coast of northeast Norfolk is generally insensitive to
increases in winter offshore wave heights of up to 10% by 2100. It might be suspected that the
low-resistance of the cliffs would render them more susceptible to larger waves, but this is
countered by the considerable transformation of waves that occurs across the shallow bathymetry
of the North Sea (Kuang and Stansby, 2004). For instance, the offshore wave modelling
conducted for this study indicates that waves of more than 2 m height coming from the south and
southeast undergo at least 50% reduction in their height as they transform inshore to about 15m
water depth. A second important factor relates to the glacial-till lithology, for it is apparent that
this material has such little resistance to erosion that rapid undercutting and cliff retreat occurs
whenever waves attack the base of the cliffs. While wave height exerts some control on the rate
of recession, other factors, such as tidal level and storm surge, are perhaps more important in
terms of the influence they have on the frequency of erosion events. In contrast to increased
wave height, changes in the direction of wave approach had a systematic impact on cliff recession
rates. However, this effect was attributable to the influence that changing wave angle imparts on
rates of sediment transport, rather than on the efficacy of wave erosion processes per se.

22
6.2 Sea-level rise

Of the scenarios examined in this study ‘high’ SLR results in the most significant increase in cliff
recession rates. Walkden and Hall (2005) have described the mechanism through which SCAPE
simulates the effect of rising sea level. Wave erosion tends to flatten the shore profile, thereby
diminishing subsequent erosion. At the same time SLR allows waves to impinge on steeper parts
of the shore profile, which causes their shape at breaking to become more aggressive and more
effective at removing material. These two tendencies result in an equilibrium profile in which the
sum of erosion and SLR-driven inundation is minimised and equalised at all elevations (see
Walkden and Hall, under review). An acceleration in SLR increases erosion rates, but this is
partially mitigated by the rapid development of a new equilibrium form.

Further negative feedback results from the increase in sediment volume delivered to the cliff toe
by rapid cliff recession. Provided that a significant portion of the added material is suitable for
forming beaches, any long-term increase in recession rates requires that extra sediments be
removed from the cliff toe. As sediments are removed from one location they are carried to other
(down-drift) areas where they build up beaches. It is this behaviour that causes the complex plan-
shape response of SCAPE profiles to increased rates of SLR. If the gradient of longshore
sediment transport was equal at all points alongshore the rate of increased erosion may be a
simple function of increased SLR (as suggested by the Bruun model). However, in most
situations longshore sediment transport disrupts this simple association (Stive, 2004).

A useful way to consider SCAPE results is through a comparison with predictions made using the
Bruun rule. The SCAPE model runs conducted in this study suggest that three types of coast can
be identified in northeast Norfolk in terms of their response to accelerated SLR: (1) beaches, (2)
deep beaches over-lying an eroding shore platform; and (3) shallow beaches over-lying an
eroding shore platform.

6.2.1 Beach shores

Beach shores have received greatest attention in the literature. These are normally assumed to be
deep enough that any underlying surface, such as a shore platform, plays no role in their
development. The evolution of this type of shoreline is driven by sediment exchange, both along
and across the shore. The most widely cited model of the response of this shore type to a change
in sea-level is the Bruun rule. This describes a two-dimensional (cross-shore) beach profile and is
built on an assumption that the beach tends towards an equilibrium profile and that incident wave
conditions (and therefore the equilibrium form) are unchanging. The concept behind the Bruun
rule is that a rise in sea-level causes disequilibrium between the incident waves and the steeper
part of the profile that they impinge upon. This unstable situation causes erosion of the upper part
of the profile, and migration of eroded sediment seaward with deposition on the lower slope,
which acts as a sink. Once this sink is full the equilibrium profile has been re-established and the
erosion of the upper slope ceases.

Beaches along some of the southern SCAPE model sections (e.g. Bacton to Eccles-on-Sea) were
sufficiently large that their response to SLR might be expected to be similar to that predicted by
the Bruun model. However, as Table 2 shows, their position advanced in response to accelerated
SLR because of the arrival of sediments released by a surge in erosion up-drift along the coast.
This observation does not negate the Bruun model, but it does underscore the importance of

23
alongshore sediment exchange and indicates that there are a range of potential responses to
accelerated SLR for this type of coast.

6.2.2 Deep beach over an eroding platform

The second type of shore, a deep beach over an eroding platform was found in the central profiles
of the SCAPE model (e.g. Overstrand to Bacton). This is similar to the simpler beach case in that
the evolution of the shoreline is driven by sediment exchange. In the SCAPE model it is assumed
that the beach surface follows a Bruun curve that migrates with rising sea-levels. This is similar
to the Bruun rule, but SCAPE profiles overlain by deep beaches are found to be less sensitive to
accelerated sea-level rise than a modified form of the Bruun model predicts: whereas SCAPE
predicts an approximate increase in recession rates of 10%, the best estimate of parameters for the
Bruun rule results in an increase in recession rates of more than 50% (Table 2). For the more
southerly of these profiles this is, to some extent, due to growth in beach volume through influx
of sediment from the north, as was the case with profiles between Bacton and Eccles-on-Sea.
However, in addition the beach is perched on a gently sloping platform that occupies part or all of
the sink area in the Bruun model (Figure 10). The reduction or absence of the sink area means
that the beach arrives at its equilibrium form more rapidly such that less erosion occurs on the
upper profile. In addition, when SLR is accompanied by rapid cliff erosion and shore platform
development, it is apparent that the platform level (in effect) rises with the sea-level, preventing
an increase in the area of the sink. Clearly, this type of shore differs from the beach type in that
shoreline response to sea-level change is not simply controlled by sediment exchange but also
depends on beach interaction with the shore platform.

Figure 10. On sandy coasts (a) the Bruun-rule predicts an upward and landward movement of the
equilibrium profile with SLR, such that eroded volume ‘A1’ matches deposited volume
‘B1’. However, where beaches overly shore platforms (b) less recession (R2) may occur
as the rock platform occupies part of the sink area.

24
6.2.3 Shallow beach over an eroding platform

The third shore type, a shallow beach overlying an eroding shore platform, emerged in the
SCAPE model sections between Sheringham and Overstrand. This type is different to the other
two in that shoreline recession is not primarily controlled by exchange of beach sediments.
Although a beach is present, changes in its volume only result in transient fluctuations in the
shore recession rate (see Walkden and Hall, under review). Instead the shoreline recession rate is
determined by wave conditions, the strength of the platform material and the profile form, which
is strongly influenced by the rate of SLR (see Walkden and Hall, 2005). The average of the three
recession rates of this type of shore predicted using the SCAPE model (see Table 2, steep,
intermediate and shallow profiles) fell within the range predicted using the Bruun method.
However this is likely to be largely accidental given that the Bruun rule assumes that no platform
is present, and that the range in the Bruun estimates was large.

Bruun-rule predictions of increased rates of cliff recession under accelerated SLR show
considerable uncertainty associated with variability in the parameter values assigned to depth of
closure and length of the active profile. In the case of shore platforms overlain by deep beaches
(Overstrand to Bacton), when an assumption is made that equilibrium profiles are relatively steep,
recession rates predicted by the Bruun rule are similar to those predicted with SCAPE (+17%).
By contrast, where intermediate and shallow equilibrium profiles are assumed, the Bruun rule
predicts much more rapid rates of recession than SCAPE (recession rates are 41% and 98%
higher respectively).

Another important source of difference between predictions of accelerated recession made using
the two methods is found in the alongshore direction. For instance, the modified Bruun rule
implies that in northeast Norfolk, under natural conditions, beach-type shores (Bacton to Eccles-
on-Sea) should be most sensitive to SLR owing to factors such as their lesser cliff height.
SCAPE is also sensitive to factors such as cliff height and proportion of beach-forming
sediments, but in this instance these factors are much less important than the large volume of
sediment that is derived from erosion of neighbouring (up-drift) cliffs and shore platforms. In
fact, SCAPE predicts that in the absence of engineering works, beach-type shores at Norfolk may
even prograde under higher rates of SLR.

In the case of shore-types where beaches overlie rocky platforms, the Bruun-rule shows little
difference in predictions of accelerated cliff recession. By contrast, when the interaction between
beach and shore platform is considered explicitly, notable differences are apparent in the response
of the shore types to SLR. In addition to the important effects of sediment derived from
neighbouring up-drift coasts, it is apparent that a deep beach overlying an eroding platform is less
sensitive because the platform occupies an area that would otherwise act as a sediment sink,
reducing the potential for erosion of the upper beach profile. Where beaches are thin, cliffs must
rely on their material-strength properties and the dissipative forms that develop through erosion,
rather than protection through beach coverage. SCAPE predicts that the equilibrium form of
these shores steepens with accelerated SLR, rather than simply translating to a new position as is
assumed in the Bruun model.

The model results have shown in particular the importance of alongshore interactions for
predicting recession rates along different types of coast. When accelerated sea-level rise has
caused additional recession, this has provided benefit in other (downdrift) locations by building
beaches and reducing (even reversing) sensitivity to rising water levels. Such interactions make it
difficult to extract generic messages and illustrate the importance of site-specific process-based

25
numerical modelling. This study introduces a new tool suitable for the construction of such
models.

6 Conclusions

A numerical systems model was used to investigate the emergent behaviour of an eroding soft-
rock shore over the mesoscale (i.e. decades to centuries and tens of km), and to predict its
possible response to climatic change between 2000 and 2100. For the scenarios evaluated, the
model was relatively insensitive to increases in offshore wave height and moderately sensitive to
changes in wave direction, but the most important effects were associated with accelerated SLR.
The results demonstrate the complexity of along- and cross-shore interactions that regulate the
recession of this type of coastline. For instance, it was possible to discriminate three coastal
‘types’ within the study area that respond in different ways to SLR. Recession rates where
predicted to increase where shallow beaches overlay shore platforms, but in some areas where
large beaches occur, under natural conditions (i.e. on a coast in which engineering structures are
absent), sediment transport from eroding up-drift shores actually results in shoreline progradation
under accelerated SLR. These results support previous suggestions that the Bruun rule is
inadequate for the representation of coastal response to SLR in areas where sediment transport is
variable along-shore. Though simplistic in its process representations relative to many coastal
geomorphic models, SCAPE is nevertheless capable of capturing the important interactions that
occur on eroding cliffed coasts, enabling predictions at scales that are relevant to coastal planning
processes. Given the relatively steady rate of SLR over the period for which measurements of
coastline evolution are available, it was not possible to test the model’s performance under such
conditions. However, the models ability to describe 117 years of coastal change during a period
of considerable anthropogenic complication is very encouraging.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The project
(T2.45) was lead by the British Geological Survey (Stephen Pearson and John Rees), who also
provided geomorphic data for model calibration. Climate-change scenarios were provided by
Iain Brown (Tyndall) and Robert Nicholls (U. Southampton). Offshore wave modelling was
conducted by Peter Stansby, Jianguo Zhou, and Cuiping Kuang (UMIST). Tide data were
supplied by the British Oceanographic Data Centre as a part of the function of the National Tidal
and Sea Level facility. The wave time series was supplied by HR Wallingford, who also
determined the storm conditions under which material moved to and from the offshore.
Information on the history of construction along the coast was provided by Peter Lawton (St La
Haye Consulting Engineers). An ArcView extension (SCAPEGIS) to assist model development
was created by Sotiris Koukoulas (U. of the Aegean), Robert Nicholls and Mustafa Mokrech (U.
Southampton). Previous development of SCAPE has been funded through the UK Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council, as well as the North Norfolk District Council and
Halcrow. The first author is currently supported by a fellowship provided by the Foundation for
Research, Science and Technology (NZ).

26
References

Bray, M.J. and Hooke, J.M.: 1997, 'Prediction of coastal cliff erosion with accelerating sea-level
rise'. Journal of Coastal Research. 13, 453-467.
Bruun, P.: 1962, 'Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion'. Journal of Waterways and
Harbours Division ASCE. 88, 117-130.
Burgess, K. and Townend, I.: 2004, 'The impact of climate change upon coastal defence
structures', 39th DEFRA Flood & Coastal Management Conference. 11.2.1-11.2.14.
Cambers, G.: 1976, 'Temporal scales in coastal erosion systems'. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers. 1, 246-256.
Chang, S.-C. and Evans, G.: 1992, 'Source of sediment and sediment transport on the east coast of
England: Significant or coincidental phenomena?' Marine Geology. 107, 283-288.
Church, J.A., Gregory, J.M., Huybrechts, P., Kuhn, M., Lambeck, K., Nhuan, M.T., Qin, D. and
Woodworth, P.L.: 2001, 'Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis'.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, Cambridge
University Press.
Clayton, K.M.: 1989, 'Sediment input from the Norfolk Cliffs, Eastern England - A century of
coast protection and its effect'. Journal of Coastal Research. 5, 433-442.
Cooper, J.A.G. and Pilkey, O.H.: 2004, 'Sea-level rise and shoreline retreat: time to abandon the
Bruun Rule'. Global and Planetary Change. 43, 157-171.
Cox, J. and Möller, I.: 2002, 'Morphodynamics of large scale features on interrupted coasts'.
Human Interaction with Large-Scale Morphological Evolution (HUMOR), Report
WP5.
Dixon, M.J. and Tawn, J.A.: 1997, 'Estimates of extreme sea conditions'. Proudman
Oceanographic Laboratory. Report 112, p. 217.
Dean, R.G.: 1991, 'Equilibrium beach profiles: characteristics and applications'. Journal of
Coastal Research. 7, 53-84.
EUROSION: 2004, 'Living with coastal erosion in Europe: sediment and space for sustainability'.
European Commission, Directorate General Environment.
Gregory, J.M., Church, J.A., Boer, G.J., Dixon, K.W., Flato, G.M., Jackett, D.R., Lowe, J.A.,
O'Farrell, S.P., Roeckner, E., Russell, G.L., Stouffer, R.J. and Winton, M.: 2001,
'Comparison of results from several AOGCMs for global and regional sea-level change
1900-2100'. Climate Dynamics. 18, 225-240.
Hall, J., Dawson, R. J., Walkden, M., Dickson, M., Stansby, P., Zhou, J., Brown, I., Watkinson,
A. and Nicholls, R.: 2005. Broad-scale analysis of morphological and climate impacts on
coastal flood risk. Proc of International Conference on Coastal Dynamics, Barcelona
Hanson, H. and Kraus, N.C.: 1989. ‘GENESIS - Generalized model for simulating shoreline
change, Vol. 1: Reference Manual and Users Guide‘. Technical Report CERC-89-19,
Coastal Engineering Research Centre, p. 247.
HR Wallingford: 2002a, 'Overstrand to Mundesley Strategy Study: Hydrodynamics'. HR
Wallingford Ltd. Report.

27
HR Wallingford: 2002b, 'Overstrand to Mundesley Strategy Study: Littoral Sediment Processes'.
HR Wallingford Ltd. Report.
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J., Murphy,
J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S.: 2002, 'Climate change
scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report'. Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, UEA, Norwich.
Kuang, C.P. and Stansby, P.S.: 2004, 'Modelling directional random wave propagation inshore'.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Maritime and Energy. 157,
123-131.
Langenberg, H., Pfizenmayer, A., von Storch, H. and Sundermann, J.: 1999, 'Storm-related sea
level variations along the North Sea coast: natural variability and anthropogenic change'.
Continental shelf research. 19, 821-842.
Lee, E.M. and Clark, A.R.: 2002, 'Investigation and management of soft rock cliffs'. Thomas
Telford, London.
Miller, L. and Douglas, B.C.: 2004, 'Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global
sea level rise'. Nature. 428, 406-409.
Nicholls, R.J., Birkemeier, W.A. and Lee, G.-h.: 1998, 'Evaluation of depth of closure using data
from Duck, NC, USA'. Marine Geology. 148, 179-201.
Pelnard-Considere, R.: 1956, 'Essai de theorie de l'evolution des forms de ravage en plage de
sable et de galets'. 4th Journees de l'Hydraulique, Les Energies de la Mer. Question
III, 792-808.
Pilkey, O.A. and Cooper, A.G.: 2004, 'Society and sea level rise'. Science. 303, 1781-1782.
Posford Haskoning: 2003, 'Winterton Dunes: Coastal Habitat Management Plan'. Final Report.
Shennan, I. and Horton, B.: 2002, 'Holocene land- and sea-level changes in Great Britain'.
Journal of Quaternary Science. 17, 511-526.
Stive, M.J.F.: 2004, 'How important is global warming for coastal erosion?' Climatic Change.
64, 27-39.
Sunamura, T.: 1992, 'Geomorphology of Rocky Coasts'. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, p. 302.
Trenhaile, A.S.: 1987, 'The geomorphology of rock coasts'. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 384.
Vincent, C.E.: 1979, 'Longshore sand transport rates - a simple model for the East Anglian
coastline'. Coastal Engineering. 3, 113-136.
Walkden, M.J.A. and Hall, J.W.: 2002, 'A model of soft cliff and platform erosion', in
Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cardiff,
pp. 3333-3345.
Walkden, M.J.A. and Hall, J.W.: 2005, 'A predictive mesoscale model of the erosion and profile
development of soft rock shores'. Coastal Engineering. 52, 535-563.
Walkden, M.J.A. and Hall, J.W.: under review, 'A mesoscale predictive model of the evolution
and management of a soft rock coast'. Submitted to the Journal of Coastal Research.
Zhang, K., Douglas, B.C. and Leatherman, S.P.: 2004, 'Global warming and coastal erosion'.
Climatic Change. 64, 41-58.

28
 Tyndall Working Paper series
2000 - 2007

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

Papers available in this series are:

• Klein R.J.T, Erickson S.E.H, Næss L.O,

Hammill A., Tanner T.M., Robledo, C., O’Brien
K.L.,(2007) Portfolio screening to support • Few R., Brown K, Tompkins E. L, (2006)
the mainstreaming of adaptation to Public participation and climate change
climatic change into development adaptation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 95
assistance: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 102
• Corbera E., Kosoy N, Martinez Tuna M,
(2006) Marketing ecosystem services
• Agnolucci P., (2007) Is it going to through protected areas and rural
happen? Regulatory Change and communities in Meso-America:
Renewable Electricity: Tyndall Centre Implications for economic efficiency,
Working Paper 101 equity and political legitimacy, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 94

• Kirk K., (2007) Potential for storage of • Schipper E. Lisa, (2006) Climate Risk,
carbon dioxide in the rocks beneath the Perceptions and Development in El
East Irish Sea: Tyndall Centre Working Paper Salvador, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 93
100
• Tompkins E. L, Amundsen H, (2005)
Perceptions of the effectiveness of the
• Arnell N.W., (2006) Global impacts of United Nations Framework Convention on
abrupt climate change: an initial Climate Change in prompting behavioural
assessment: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 99 change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 92

• Warren R., Hope C, Mastrandrea M, Tol R S

• Lowe T.,(2006) Is this climate porn? How J, Adger W. N., Lorenzoni I., (2006)
does climate change communication affect Spotlighting the impacts functions in
our perceptions and behaviour?, Tyndall integrated assessments. Research Report
Centre Working Paper 98 Prepared for the Stern Review on the
Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall Centre
• Walkden M, Stansby P,(2006) The effect of Paper 91
dredging off Great Yarmouth on the wave
conditions and erosion of the North Norfolk • Warren R., Arnell A, Nicholls R., Levy P E,
coast. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 97 Price J, (2006) Understanding the regional
impacts of climate change: Research
• Anthoff, D., Nicholls R., Tol R S J, Vafeidis, Report Prepared for the Stern Review on
A., (2006) Global and regional exposure to the Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall
large rises in sea-level: a sensitivity Centre Working Paper 90
analysis. This work was prepared for the Stern
Review on the Economics of Climate Change:
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 96 • Barker T., Qureshi M, Kohler J., (2006)

Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007

The Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
with Induced Technological Change: A • Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R
Meta-Analysis of Estimates in the and Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous
Literature, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 89 climate change by inducing technological
progress: scenarios using a large-scale
• Kuang C, Stansby P, (2006) Sandbanks for econometric model, Tyndall Centre Working
coastal protection: implications of sea-level Paper 77
rise. Part 3: wave modelling, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 88 • Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political
uncertainty in the Danish renewable
• Kuang C, Stansby P, (2006) Sandbanks for energy market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
coastal protection: implications of sea-level 76
rise. Part 2: current and morphological
modelling, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 87 • Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005)
Beyond probability: new methods for
• Stansby P, Kuang C, Laurence D, Launder B, representing uncertainty in projections of
(2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: future climate, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
implications of sea-level rise. Part 1: 75
application to East Anglia, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 86 • Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005)
How do the costs of adaptation affect
• Bentham M, (2006) optimal mitigation when there is
An assessment of carbon sequestration uncertainty, irreversibility and learning?,
potential in the UK – Southern North Sea Tyndall Centre Working Paper 74
case study: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 85
• Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process
• Anderson K., Bows A., Upham P., (2006) simulator scoping study, Tyndall Centre
Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: Working Paper 73
contradictions with climate policy,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 84 • Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S.,
Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005)
• Williamson M., Lenton T., Shepherd J., Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster
Edwards N, (2006) An efficient numerical narrative and public perceptions of climate
terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 72
system modelling, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 83 • Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005)
Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to
• Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An low-income communities, Tyndall Centre
analysis of a post-Kyoto climate policy Working Paper 71
model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 82
• Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross,
• Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J.
energy service contracts, Tyndall Centre and Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a
Working Paper 81 Major Contribution to UK Energy Supply?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 70
• Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B.,
Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R., • Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005)
(2005) A framework for assessing the Natural hazards and climate change: what
political economy of post-2012 global knowledge is transferable?, Tyndall Centre
climate regime, Tyndall Centre Working Paper Working Paper 69
80
• Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The
• Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) formation of belief in climate change in
Can adaptation and mitigation be business organisations: a dynamic
complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper simulation model, Tyndall Centre Working
79 Paper 68

• Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and • Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan,

competition in the non-fossil fuel T., (2005) Developing regional and local
obligation market, Tyndall Centre Working scenarios for climate change mitigation
Paper 78
Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007
and adaptation: Part 2: Scenario creation, of monthly climate for Europe and the
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 67 globe: the observed record (1901-2000)
• Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I., and 16 scenarios (2001-2100), Tyndall
O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping Centre Working Paper 55
actors involved in climate change policy
networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working • Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., and
Paper 66 O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and
local scenarios for climate change
• Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L. mitigation and adaptation Part 1: A
(2004) Why do resource managers make framing of the East of England Tyndall
links to stakeholders at other scales?, Centre Working Paper 54
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 65
• Agnolucci, P. and Ekins, P. (2004) The
• Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel Announcement Effect And Environmental
Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall Taxation Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53
Centre Working Paper 64
• Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex Post Evaluations
• Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, of CO2 –Based Taxes: A Survey Tyndall
S. (2004) Floods, health and climate Centre Working Paper 52
change: a strategic review, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 63 • Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. and Ekins, P.
(2004) Hysteresis and Energy Demand: the
• Barker, T. (2004) Economic theory and Announcement Effects and the effects of
the transition to sustainability: a the UK Climate Change Levy Tyndall Centre
comparison of Working Paper 51
approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62
• Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. and
• Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a
Sahel: long term perspectives and future Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working
prospects, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61 Paper 50

• Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. • Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our
(2004) Scaling adaptation: climate change electricity networks to promote
response and coastal management in the decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working
UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 60 Paper 49

• Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic

• Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004)
structure under technological
Modelling Innovation and Threshold Effects
development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre
48
Working Paper 59
• Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M.,
• Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social
(2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational
Simulation of The Public Perceptions of
adaptation to climate change impacts,
Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
• Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow,
58
A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004)
UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall
• Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S
Centre Working Paper 46
(2004) The Public Perceptions of
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A • Purdy, R and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological
Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 57 carbon sequestration: critical legal issues,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45
• Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of
social vulnerability to climate change for
Africa, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56 • Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C.
(2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon
Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working
• Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Paper 44
Hulme, M. and New, M. (2004) A
comprehensive set of high-resolution grids
Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007
• Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003)
Innovation and Threshold Effects in • Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan,
Technology Responses to Climate Change, T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43 for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the
pilot-phase interactive integrated
• Kim, J. (2003) Sustainable Development assessment process (Aurion Project),
and the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42
• Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate
• Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre
Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Working Paper 30
Paper 41
• Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A
• Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, Multi-Criteria Assessment Framework for
S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and Carbon-Mitigation Projects: Putting
adaptation into climate and development “development” in the centre of decision-
policy: three research questions, Tyndall making, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29
Centre Working Paper 40
• Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M.,
• Tompkins, E. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R.
Defining response capacity to enhance (2003). Defining and experiencing
climate change policy, Tyndall Centre dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 39 Working Paper 28

• Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk • Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003).
and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Building resilience to climate change
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38 through adaptive management of natural
resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27
• Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003)
Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and • Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003).
the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Country level risk measures of climate-
Working Paper 37 related natural disasters and implications
for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall
• Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. Centre Working Paper 26
(2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising
Transport: The Role of Technologies, • Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36 Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of
Network Splitting for Fault Level
• Tompkins E. L and Hurlston, L. (2003). Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25
Report to the Cayman Islands’
Government. Adaptation lessons learned • Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G.
from responding to tropical cyclones by the (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables
Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 – and CHP into the UK Transmission
2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35 Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24

• Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does • Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002).
climate policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Justice and adaptation to climate change,
Centre Working Paper 34 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23

• Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and • Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T.,
Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and
Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Combined Heat and Power Resources in
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33 the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22

• Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and

• Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall
(2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP Centre Working Paper 21
into the UK Electricity System:
Investigation of the impact of network • Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing
faults on the stability of large offshore organisational use of scenarios: Case study
wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007
- evaluating UK energy policy options,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20 • Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001).
Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries,
• Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9
role of hydrogen in powering road
transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19 • Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
• Watson, J. (2002). The development of 8
large technical systems: implications for
hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18 • Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate
Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7
• Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy
Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17 • Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T.
(2001). The identification and evaluation of
• Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, suitable scenario development methods for
D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to the estimation of future probabilities of
climate change: Setting the Agenda for extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre
Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Working Paper 6
Centre Working Paper 16
• Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse
• Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical Effects and the Impacts of Response
change in an energy-environment-economy Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre
(E3) model for an IA system: A model of Working Paper 5
Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 15 • Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High
are the Costs of Kyoto for the US
• Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4
Use of Integrated Assessment: An
Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall • Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J.
Centre Working Paper 14 (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate
change impact assessment: using
• Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall
Technological Change, Industry Structure Centre Working Paper 3
and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 13 • Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated
Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working
• Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime Paper 2
from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or
sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre • Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A
Working Paper 12 Country-by-Country Analysis of Past and
Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre
• Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Working Paper 1
Integrated Assessment of Climate Change,
Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 11 © Copyright 2007

• Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.

(2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An
Initial Exploration of Public Opinions,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10

For further information please contact

Javier Delgado-Esteban

Tyndall Working Papers 2000 - 2007