Modelling economic risk to sea‐level rise and storms at the coastal margin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We develop a methodological approach through integrated assessment using System Dynamics modelling and Scenario Planning to investigate the economic vulnerability of coastal communities to the compounding impacts of sea‐level rise (SLR) and storm flooding and inundation associated with climate change. The approach uses a coastal flood risk assessment that quantifies physical drivers alongside socio‐economic well‐being for coastal communities to provide a methodology for managing uncertain futures through causal relationships in System Dynamics. A New Zealand case study is used to illustrate the long‐term economic impacts of inaction under different SLR projections and recognise critical tolerance thresholds to help exposed property owners plan their future. Modelling scenarios using this integrated approach identified two stand‐out drivers that influence a behavioural response of communities to coastal inundation at the local scale: first, the ongoing likelihood of risk transfer to the insurance industry, and second, the decisions of households and firms to accept risk for the added value of coastal living. Model outputs suggest that the threat posed by coastal hazards drives a behavioural, socio‐economic response that exceeds the initial economic exposure of capital assets. In the economic short term (1–10 years) and medium term (10–20 years), vulnerable communities accept the risk of capital loss and loss of insurability, favouring the amenity of coastal living. However, in the long term (+20 years), economic losses from repeat flooding increase risk‐based insurance premiums, promote insurance withdrawal and drive negative corrections in property valuations. Unanticipated insights were obtained from the modelling, including the likely timing of tolerance thresholds, particularly the insurance withdrawal point, which is critical to insurer/consumer decision‐making and community planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".