4.6 Article

A yearly maximum sea level simulator and its applications: A Stockholm case study

期刊

AMBIO
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 1263-1274

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-021-01661-4

关键词

Adaptation; Extreme sea levels; Flooding; Sea level rise; Stockholm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A yearly maximum sea level simulator has been developed for Stockholm, combining extreme sea level estimates and mean sea level rise projections to assess the risk of future flooding for new structures. The framework can also quantify the impact of uncertainties in sea level projections and emission scenarios on flooding risk. Moreover, it can be used to test adaptation measures and determine that protections built once the mean sea level has risen above a certain threshold can be very effective.
A yearly maximum sea level simulator for Stockholm is presented. The simulator combines extreme sea level estimates and mean sea level rise projections into a joint probabilistic framework. The framework can be used, for example, to assess the risk that new structures placed at the current minimum allowed height above the sea level can become flooded in the future. Such assessments can be used to underpin future building free levels, which would be a great improvement over the much more arbitrary criteria in use today. Another strong point of the framework is that it can be used to quantify the influence of uncertainties in mean sea level projections, estimates of sea level extremes and future emission scenarios on the risk of flooding. For Stockholm mean sea level uncertainty is found to be much more important than extreme sea level uncertainty. The framework is also set-up to test adaptation measures. It is found that protections that are built once the mean sea level has risen above some given threshold can be very efficient. Lastly, the framework is embedded into a simple decision problem that can be used to calculate risk/reward ratios for land development as a function of height above today's mean sea level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据