Port authorities from around the world were surveyed to ascertain how administrators feel climate change might impact their operations, what level of change would be problematic, and how they plan to adapt to new conditions. The survey was distributed to 350 major ports through two leading international port organizations, the International Association of Ports and Harbors and the American Association of Port Authorities.  (PDF contains 4 pages

Becker, Austin

Fischer, Martin

Matson, Pamela

English

Aquatic Commons

 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SEAPORTS: A SURVEY OF KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, 
AND PLANNING EFFORTS AMONG PORT ADMINISTRATORS 
 
Austin Becker*, Martin Fischer, Pamela Matson 
 
 
Abstract 
 
Port authorities from around the world were surveyed to ascertain how administrators feel climate change might 
impact their operations, what level of change would be problematic, and how they plan to adapt to new conditions. 
The survey was distributed to 350 major ports through two leading international port organizations, the International 
Association of Ports and Harbors and the American Association of Port Authorities.  
 
Introduction 
 
Climate change will disproportionately affect ports and port-based economies, depending on their geographic 
location and the institutional capacities of the ports themselves and the communities in which they are located. Ports 
in a hurricane belt will face different challenges than those on emergent coastlines far removed from storm-impacts. 
Ports in developing nations will have a different suite of options available to them than those in developed nations. 
Ports located in estuaries that provide nursery environments for marine life have an even greater responsibility to 
protect coastal waters. A recent United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on climate impacts on 
U.S. seaports states, “most ports do not appear to be thinking about, let alone actively preparing to address, the 
effects of climate change” (EPA, 2008). To meet these challenges, decision makers must understand the nature of 
the problem and what options may be considered. We surveyed port authorities from around the world to ascertain 
how administrators feel that climate change might impact their operations, what level of sea level change would 
create operational problems, and how they plan to adapt to new environmental conditions. Little research has been 
done in this area and results of this survey serve as an important step to understanding where this audience stands 
and what information they require to increase resiliency.  
  
Background 
 
By the very nature of their business, seaports are located in one of the most vulnerable areas to climate change 
impacts: on the coast susceptible to sea level rise and increased storm intensity and/or at mouths of rivers susceptible 
to flooding. 90% of world freight moves by ship (IMO, 2008). Thus, seaports play a crucial role in the global 
economy as transportation hubs for the vast majority of goods transported around the world. Given shipping’s 
efficiencies and its smaller relative carbon footprint size compared to other modes of transport, as well as forecasted 
increases in world freight volumes, demands on ports are likely to only grow in the coming century (Transportation 
Institute, 2004). To remain efficient and resilient, seaports must anticipate the impacts of climate change and 
proactively prepare for sea level rise, increased flooding, and more frequent extreme storm events (Hallegate, 2008; 
PIANC, 2008; UNCTAD, 2008; EPA, 2008). 
 
We believe this is the first survey to address this issue and this sector of the global economy. However, at least two 
similar surveys have been conducted on a smaller scale. A group from Texas A&M conducted a survey in 2005 and 
2006 entitled, ‘Port Planning and Views on Climate Change’. The survey focused on the central question, ‘Is 
planning for climate change on the radar screen of the USA seaport industry?’ This survey found that about half of 
the 27 respondents felt climate change would affect their ports. Of those, a small majority were taking at least initial 
steps to plan for it (Bierling & Lorented, 2008) The State of California, arguably one of the most progressive states 
in the US when it comes to climate change issues, conducted a survey of its major coastal facilities. Survey results 
found that marine facilities in California are generally not considering climate change or sea level rise, which is 
projected to reach 1.4 meters in the State by 2100 (California Lands Commission, 2009). Our survey targeted a 
global audience and was designed to generate baseline data about how ports  think about adaptation to climate 
change. 
 
Methods 
 
 The survey targeted a wide variety of port authorities in an attempt to sample ports in developing and developed 
nations, and ports in geographic areas with varying amounts of risk to coastal and ocean storms. We distributed the 
survey to member ports of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) and the American Association 
of Port Authorities (AAPA).  Together, the IAPH and AAPA represent 345 ports from around the world which are 
considered to be the largest and most important ports in global marine commerce. Most ports, if not all, that play a 
critical role in international trade and are interested in global issues are likely to be members regardless of size, 
ownership and traffic character. 
 
We designed an online survey consisting of 30 questions, using Survey Monkey, with input from the two port 
associations. Representatives from the AAPA, the IAPH, and others reviewed and pre-tested the survey tool. Review 
and pretesting helped insure that the questions and response options were easily understood and the questions were 
appropriate for the audience. The survey should have taken about 10-15 minutes to complete. We distributed the 
survey to AAPA and IAPH member ports in August 2009.  
 
Results 
 
98 ports responded to the survey and provided 93 usable responses. Port directors and members of the port 
environmental departments constituted nearly half of the respondents, with planners, engineers, and making up the 
remainder. Most respondents had significant experience, with over half having spent at least 16 years working in 
maritime industries. 
 
 
Key results show 48% of respondents believed that climate change negatively impacts their port operations in the 
coming decades. 86% felt that the international port community needs to address these issues. However, 66% did 
not feel well-informed about how climate change might directly impact their own port. Our respondent ports were 
rapidly expanding but on the whole administrators were not accounting for potential climate impacts in years to 
come. 68% of respondents indicated that their ports plan only ten or fewer years ahead.  58% will implement new 
infrastructure within the next five years. Most, however, had no policies in place that specifically address climate 
change adaptation. Only 44% reported that they had taken any specific steps to prepare for potential climate change 
effects. When asked an open-ended question about their main concerns, most listed storm impacts and sea level rise. 
38% expected a 0.5-1m rise by 2100 and 15% expected 1m or more. Interestingly, when asked about the degree to 
which this might be an issue, 64% felt their port could handle the expected rise without building any additional 
protections.   
 
Mitigation through reducing port emissions, and adaptation by preparing for the impacts of climate change on ports, 
require very different initiatives. Survey results show that ports working to address one initiative also tend to be the 
same ports working to address the other. Overall, however, respondents placed more importance on mitigation 
issues over adaptation. This may be a result of anticipated regulations or global attention to CO2 issues. There are 
still uncertainties in the scientific models of climate change, so it is not surprising that ports were not yet focused on 
the potential impacts on their operations.  
  
Discussion 
 
Current scientific projections on sea-level rise range from nearly a meter to two meters by 2100 (IPCC, 2007; 
Rhamstorf, 2007; Wu et al., 2009). Possible consequences of climate change include a doubling of Category 4 and 5 
storms by 2100 (Bender, et al., 2010). These events create interruptions in the flow of cargo through ports and, as 
demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina, can devastate a regional economy and environment for months or even years 
after an event.  
 
More than half of the responding ports – 58% – planned for the historic 100-year storm period.  But this preparation 
will not be effective if the 100-year return period becomes a new 30-year return period due to climate change. With 
typical port infrastructure designed to last for 50 years or more, new infrastructure put in place today should be built 
with the new climate regime in mind. Infrastructure often outlasts its design life and costs of repair easily outweigh 
the expense of anticipating climate change through good design at an earlier stage. Moreover, even though the 
design lifetime of many capital projects is 50 years (well within the horizon for many predicted climate change 
scenarios) the capital planning cycles are typically 5 to 10 years.  This mismatch between planning cycles and 
infrastructure lifetimes may be at the root of many structural organizational difficulties in addressing this complex 
issue. 
 
Good business practice dictates that ports protect their infrastructure and operations. The insurance industry will 
play a large role in covering some of this additional risk. But with 93% of respondents being either public or 
public/private owned or operated, public policy will also play a part in addressing overt risk to the ports as well as 
more covert risks to the environment and port-dependent economy. Although the costs of proactively adapting to 
climate change are thought to be far lower than the costs of a reactive response, adapting will require significant 
investment.  
  
Conclusion 
 
Results show that the world port community is very concerned with impacts of climate change, but generally feels 
the need for more specific information from the scientific community in order to make good decisions. It appears 
that the quality of scientific information available is at a level of granularity that simply does not match the shorter-
range planning horizons typical in the ports community.  This situation must be resolved if decisions are to be made 
that will protect both the port infrastructure itself and the environmental and economic systems that depend on a 
resilient and efficient maritime industry. Results of this survey serve as a clear call for the world ports community 
and the scientific community to engage more deeply to ensure that seaport decision makers have the best climate-
change information available.  
 
References 
    
Bender, M., Knutson, T., Tuleya, R., Sirutis, J., Vecchi, G., Garner, S., et al. (2010). Modeled Impact of 
Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes. Science, 327(5964), 454. 
Bierling, D., & Lorented, P. (2008). Ports and Climate Change: Perceptions and Planning Practice. Paper 
presented at the 2008 Texas Ports and Waterways Conference.  
California State Lands Commission. (2009). A Report on Sea Level Rise Preparedness: California State Lands 
Commission,. 
Hallegate, S., Patmore, N., Mestre, O., Dumas, P., Corfee-Morlot, J., Herwieger, C., Muir Wood R. (2008). 
Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise, and storm surge risk in port cities: A case study on 
Copenhagen: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 
Vulnerability. Cambridge, UK. 
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2008). International Shipping and World Trade Facts and Figures.    
International Navigation Association (PIANC). (2008). Envicom – Task Group 3: Waterborne transport, ports and 
waterways: A review of climate change drivers, impacts, responses and mitigation. 
Rhamstorf, S. (2007). A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise  Science, 315(5810), 368 – 
370. 
 Transportation Institute. (2004). Industry Profile. Transportation Institute. Retrieved from http://www.trans-
inst.org/industry-profiles.html 
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2008). Maritime transport and the climate 
change challenge. Genega: United Nations. 
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008). Planning for Climate Change Impacts at U.S. Ports. 
White Paper prepared by ICF International for the US EPA: United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). 
Wu, S., Najjar, R., & Siewert, J. (2009). Potential impacts of sea-level rise on the Mid-and Upper-Atlantic Region of 
the United States. Climatic Change, 95(1), 121-138. 
 
  
Austin Becker, Ph.D. Student 
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program for Environment and Resources 
Stanford University 
473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA  94305 
Ph (401) 636-0430 
austinb@stanford.edu 


Impacts of climate change of seaports:  A survey of knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators

http://aquaticcommons.org/3883/1/Becker_papers.pdf

Impacts of climate change of seaports: A survey of knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons