Global survey shows planners use widely varying sea-level rise projections for coastal adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Including sea-level rise (SLR) projections in planning and implementing coastal adaptation is crucial. Here we analyze the first global survey on the use of SLR projections for 2050 and 2100. Two-hundred and fifty-three coastal practitioners engaged in adaptation/planning from 49 countries provided complete answers to the survey which was distributed in nine languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish. While recognition of the threat of SLR is almost universal, only 72% of respondents currently utilize SLR projections. Generally, developing countries have lower levels of utilization. There is no global standard in the use of SLR projections: for locations using a standard data structure, 53% are planning using a single projection, while the remainder are using multiple projections, with 13% considering a low-probability high-end scenario. Countries with histories of adaptation and consistent national support show greater assimilation of SLR projections into adaptation decisions. This research provides new insights about current planning practices and can inform important ongoing efforts on the application of the science that is essential to the promotion of effective adaptation. Coastal practitioners in countries with longer histories and more national support show greater assimilation of sea level rise projections in adaptation planning, according to quantitative and qualitative analysis of a global survey.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".