Identifying barriers and potentials of integrated assessments of sustainable urban development and adaptation to rising sea levels

Current adaptation responses to sea-level rise tend to focus on protecting existing infrastructure resulting in unsustainable adaptation pathways. At the same time, urban development compromises a city's adaptive ca-pacity if the climate risk component is ignored. While fighting for the same space, these two domains are currently widely analyzed separately. This paper develops a framework for integrating sustainability assessments of sustainable urban development (SUD) and coastal adaptation to climate change (CACC). Through a systematic literature review, we collected more than 2,700 indicators for SUD and 1,800 indicators for CACC. The indicators occurring most frequently are extracted and structured into frameworks. The study highlights the differences and similarities between the two frameworks. We further identify complementary and conflicting objectives that can advance or inhibit the effective integration of SUD and CACC. CACC tends to focus on assessing specific adap-tation measures and their immediate impact on the city's vulnerability, ignoring wider impacts on socioeconomic systems. SUD considers the city and its functions as a whole but ignores vulnerability assessments across urban subsystems. We develop a combined framework for sustainability assessment that may serve as a basis for both qualitative and quantitative integrated studies under the paradigm of sustainable adaptation.

Automated summary

Current adaptation responses to sea-level rise tend to focus on protecting existing infrastructure, resulting in unsustainable adaptation pathways. Meanwhile, urban development without considering climate risks compromises a city's adaptive capacity. This paper develops a framework for integrating sustainability assessments of sustainable urban development (SUD) and coastal adaptation to climate change (CACC). Through a literature review, the study identifies common indicators and reveals differences and similarities between the two frameworks. The study also points out complementary and conflicting objectives that can either advance or hinder the effective integration of SUD and CACC.