**3. Methodology and research hypotheses**

In the present paper, we approach the assessment of economic impacts of SLR with respect to two different aspects: long-term (2100) and short-term (annual) damages. The long-term losses follow the gradual SLR as specified by the IPCC scenarios for 0.5-m and 1-m elevation. The short-term financial appraisal of losses is based on the increased frequency and intensity of storm surges, a consequence of climate change taking place in parallel to long-term SLR. The inclusion of such short-term losses in the estimation of SLR impacts follows IPCC and other experts' opinion (IIPCC CZMS, 1992; Hοοzemans et al., 1993; McInnes et al., 2000; Emanuel, 2005; Velegrakis, 2010).

Referring to the long-term impacts, losses of the following land uses are quantified and evaluated:


Selection was based on data availability from 27 case studies of the Greek coastal area (Table 2). Based on these studies, the total loss of land for the five uses under investigation and for 0.5-m and 1-m elevation is assessed. Then, for housing, tourist and agricultural uses, a market pricing approach is drawn on in order to estimate unit and total financial losses. For wetlands and forestry we rely on the widely used application of value transfer (Navrud & Ready, 2007). Loss of public infrastructure (airports, ports) and industrial zones were not taken into consideration. More specifically:

#### **Housing and tourist uses**

The cost assessment of these impacts - both in the 27 case studies as well as the wider coastline area - was achieved by multiplying the total area lost in each case by the mean market value of property in the specific area. Two problems were faced here: the sparse data regarding land uses in the case studies, and the wide variation of prices for land property. So the value of 1,200 €/m2 was selected as the mean estimated market value of property, which better reflects the mean land price for housing and tourist purposes. This is equivalent to a similar figure (1300 €/year) a rough estimation by Velegrakis at al. (2008), representing the mean income from tourist activities per meter of Greek beach.

### **Agriculture**

384 International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change

Fig. 3. Map of Greece displaying the 27 case studies (Google Earth).

In the present paper, we approach the assessment of economic impacts of SLR with respect to two different aspects: long-term (2100) and short-term (annual) damages. The long-term losses follow the gradual SLR as specified by the IPCC scenarios for 0.5-m and 1-m elevation. The short-term financial appraisal of losses is based on the increased frequency and intensity of storm surges, a consequence of climate change taking place in parallel to long-term SLR. The inclusion of such short-term losses in the estimation of SLR impacts follows IPCC and other experts' opinion (IIPCC CZMS, 1992; Hοοzemans et al., 1993;

Referring to the long-term impacts, losses of the following land uses are quantified and

**3. Methodology and research hypotheses** 

McInnes et al., 2000; Emanuel, 2005; Velegrakis, 2010).

evaluated: Housing Tourist Agriculture Wetlands Forestry

Assessment of the cost of loss of farmland was achieved by multiplying the lost area with the "specific basic value" (SBV) of the farmland for each location investigated. SBV represents the value of a square meter of non-irrigated farmland of yearly crop cultivations, as determined by the Ministry of Economics for property tax purposes. SBV applies only in areas facing roads or located up to 800 meters from the sea.

#### **Wetlands**

To estimate the cost of wetland losses, the total area of wetlands expected to be lost due to SLR is multiplied by their unit value. The unit value for wetlands (4.8 million €/km2) was 'transferred' from Darwin and Tol (2001), a well-known study regarding appraisal of SLR impacts. Table 3 depicts the social values for certain Greek wetlands.


Table 3. Social values for Greek wetlands.

Linking Sea Level Rise Damage and Vulnerability Assessment: The Case of Greece 387

respective unit value for each specific land use. As a next step, cost coefficients are calculated for a SLR of 0.5 m and 1 m for housing, tourist and agricultural land uses, plus wetlands and forests. The cost coefficients are the quotient of the financial value of land loss in a specific location divided by the length/area of the coastline at this location. As a result, these coefficients comprise quantified indications of the overall financial loss expressed per km/km2 of coastline for the five land uses examined. The values that were finally selected in terms of mean values for cost coefficients, the length and the area of the coastline per land

**Land use Average cost coefficients Length/Area of** 

The estimated financial loss from the case studies is then extrapolated to the Greek territory. The total financial loss of SLR for the Greek coastal zone in 2100 is presented per land use in

The estimates of financial loss in 2100 were converted to present values using discount rates

**Land use Total financial loss 2100 (10^3 €)** 

Table 5. Total financial loss of SLR in 2100 per land use.

including aesthetic/recreational/ storm surge damages).

of 1% and 3%. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7 respectively.

**Land use Total financial loss 2010 (10^3 €)** 

Housing & Touristic 142,013,297 257,630,475 Wetlands 56,358 100,873 Forests 65 212 Agriculture 3,219,574 7,454,328 Total 145,289,294 265,185,888 Table 6. Present value of total financial loss of SLR per land use for discount rate 1% (not

Housing & Touristic 347,738,400 630,842,400 Wetlands 138,000 247,000 Forests 160 520 Agriculture 7,883,553 18,252,911 Total 355,760,113 649,342,831

Touristic 144,891 10^3 €/km 262,851 10^3 €/km 2,400 km Wetlands 138 10^3 €/km2 247 10^3 €/km2 1,000 km2 Forests 0.04 10^3 €/km2 0.13 10^3 €/km2 4,000 km2 Agriculture 222 10^3 €/km2 514 10^3 €/km2 35,511.5 km2 Table 4. Values for the average cost coefficients, the length and the area of the coastline per

**SLR 0,5 m SLR 1 m Greek shoreline** 

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

use, are presented in Table 4.

Housing &

land use.

Table 5.

### **Forests**

The cost for loss of forests was based on the unit value of Greek forests (89.25 €/ha) as estimated in the study of Kazana and Kazaklis (2005).

The estimated value of the five coastal uses indicates the (future) financial loss due to SLR. A cost index is then calculated based on the estimated cost of impacts due to loss of housing, tourist, wetlands, forestry and agriculture land uses, as well as on the total length and area of the coastline examined in each case study. This index estimates the financial cost of SLR per km or km2 of coastline, based on data available in each case. All unit values used were adjusted across locations and time on the basis of the Purchasing Power Parity Index (PPPI) and Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Pattanayak et al., 2002).

From a socioeconomic point of view, the accompanying phenomenon of intensified storm surges (what we call here the short-term impacts of SLR) is equally interesting as the longterm impacts (over a horizon of 90 years) accelerated SLR. To our knowledge, financial impact studies regarding storm surges in Greece do not exist. Financial calculations of the impacts of past storm surges from regional authorities are limited and incomplete. To fill this data gap, a stated preference survey was designed and implemented in order to elicit social welfare losses from short term SLR (Kontogianni, 2011). Our short-term estimation of SLR impacts is based on findings of this survey.

To properly appraise the coastal system and its total economic value, the totality of ecosystem services and goods described in Table 1 has to be evaluated (Skourtos et al., 2005). Our results indicate a partial value of the coastal zone, taking into consideration the five aforementioned uses. Consequently, our appraisal constitutes a lower threshold of the future losses due to SLR. At a second level, and in order to highlight the 'true' but unknown total economic value of SLR damages, the equally important aesthetic values of these areas are also estimated on the basis of values transferred from Brenner et al. (2010).

Finally, the present value of losses was estimated by discounting total amounts with interest rates of 1% and 3%. The selection of a suitable (social) discount interest rate is a vital parameter for similar long-term estimations. Economic theory and practice are not in a position to provide a definite answer on the choice of discounting rates, since in essence the issue of discount interest rate is a moral issue related to perceptions of intergenerational justice. For example, in OECD countries, the proposed discount interest rates for long-term investments range between 3 - 12% (OECD, 2007). The European Union recommends a 4% interest rate for mid- and long-term investments but also accepts implementation of lower interest rates in the case of extended timelines, such as climate change (European Commission, 2005).

## **4. Costing the damages of sea level rise**

This section presents our results on the base of the proposed methodological approach for the evaluation of the financial loss due to the long-term impacts of SLR as well as the monetary estimates of the short-term impacts of SLR caused by storm surges. Aesthetic values are also estimated and added up to approach the total coastal value.

#### **4.1 Financial impacts of long-term sea level rise**

The loss of coastal land according to scenarios for a sea level rise of 0.5 m and 1 m, as specified in the case studies under examination, is presented in Table 2. The financial value of land loss in the case studies is then calculated as the area to be flooded times the

The cost for loss of forests was based on the unit value of Greek forests (89.25 €/ha) as

The estimated value of the five coastal uses indicates the (future) financial loss due to SLR. A cost index is then calculated based on the estimated cost of impacts due to loss of housing, tourist, wetlands, forestry and agriculture land uses, as well as on the total length and area of the coastline examined in each case study. This index estimates the financial cost of SLR per km or km2 of coastline, based on data available in each case. All unit values used were adjusted across locations and time on the basis of the Purchasing Power Parity Index (PPPI)

From a socioeconomic point of view, the accompanying phenomenon of intensified storm surges (what we call here the short-term impacts of SLR) is equally interesting as the longterm impacts (over a horizon of 90 years) accelerated SLR. To our knowledge, financial impact studies regarding storm surges in Greece do not exist. Financial calculations of the impacts of past storm surges from regional authorities are limited and incomplete. To fill this data gap, a stated preference survey was designed and implemented in order to elicit social welfare losses from short term SLR (Kontogianni, 2011). Our short-term estimation of

To properly appraise the coastal system and its total economic value, the totality of ecosystem services and goods described in Table 1 has to be evaluated (Skourtos et al., 2005). Our results indicate a partial value of the coastal zone, taking into consideration the five aforementioned uses. Consequently, our appraisal constitutes a lower threshold of the future losses due to SLR. At a second level, and in order to highlight the 'true' but unknown total economic value of SLR damages, the equally important aesthetic values of these areas

Finally, the present value of losses was estimated by discounting total amounts with interest rates of 1% and 3%. The selection of a suitable (social) discount interest rate is a vital parameter for similar long-term estimations. Economic theory and practice are not in a position to provide a definite answer on the choice of discounting rates, since in essence the issue of discount interest rate is a moral issue related to perceptions of intergenerational justice. For example, in OECD countries, the proposed discount interest rates for long-term investments range between 3 - 12% (OECD, 2007). The European Union recommends a 4% interest rate for mid- and long-term investments but also accepts implementation of lower interest rates in the

This section presents our results on the base of the proposed methodological approach for the evaluation of the financial loss due to the long-term impacts of SLR as well as the monetary estimates of the short-term impacts of SLR caused by storm surges. Aesthetic

The loss of coastal land according to scenarios for a sea level rise of 0.5 m and 1 m, as specified in the case studies under examination, is presented in Table 2. The financial value of land loss in the case studies is then calculated as the area to be flooded times the

are also estimated on the basis of values transferred from Brenner et al. (2010).

case of extended timelines, such as climate change (European Commission, 2005).

values are also estimated and added up to approach the total coastal value.

estimated in the study of Kazana and Kazaklis (2005).

and Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Pattanayak et al., 2002).

SLR impacts is based on findings of this survey.

**4. Costing the damages of sea level rise** 

**4.1 Financial impacts of long-term sea level rise** 

**Forests** 

respective unit value for each specific land use. As a next step, cost coefficients are calculated for a SLR of 0.5 m and 1 m for housing, tourist and agricultural land uses, plus wetlands and forests. The cost coefficients are the quotient of the financial value of land loss in a specific location divided by the length/area of the coastline at this location. As a result, these coefficients comprise quantified indications of the overall financial loss expressed per km/km2 of coastline for the five land uses examined. The values that were finally selected in terms of mean values for cost coefficients, the length and the area of the coastline per land use, are presented in Table 4.


Table 4. Values for the average cost coefficients, the length and the area of the coastline per land use.

The estimated financial loss from the case studies is then extrapolated to the Greek territory. The total financial loss of SLR for the Greek coastal zone in 2100 is presented per land use in Table 5.


Table 5. Total financial loss of SLR in 2100 per land use.

The estimates of financial loss in 2100 were converted to present values using discount rates of 1% and 3%. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7 respectively.


Table 6. Present value of total financial loss of SLR per land use for discount rate 1% (not including aesthetic/recreational/ storm surge damages).

Linking Sea Level Rise Damage and Vulnerability Assessment: The Case of Greece 389

should gradually depreciate solely as a consequence of costal risk anticipation. Therefore,

Regarding the estimation of aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual loss, the cost

**Land use Value Average cost coefficients Length/Area** 

aesthetic/recreational 352 10^3 €/km 639 10^3 €/km 2,400 km cultural/spiritual 0.6 10^3 €/km 1.0 10^3 €/km

€/km2 1,000 km2 cultural/spiritual 1 10^3 €/km2 1.8 10^3

aesthetic/recreational 844,800 1,533,600 cultural/spiritual 1,440 2,400

cultural/spiritual 1,000 1,800 Total 847,340 1,538,100

aesthetic/recreational 345,009 626,309 cultural/spiritual 588 980

cultural/spiritual 408 735

€/km2

Table 9. Values for the average value coefficients, the length and the area of the coastline per

The estimated aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual loss from the case studies is then projected to the whole Greek territory. The total loss of SLR for the Greek coastal zone in

**Land use Value Total loss 2100 (10^3 €)** 

Wetlands aesthetic/recreational 100 300

**Land use Value Total loss 2010 (10^3 €)** 

Wetlands aesthetic/recreational 41 123

Total 346,046 628,146

Table 11. Present value of aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss of SLR per

Table 10. Total aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss of SLR in 2100 per

The above estimates in 2100 were converted to present values using discount rates of 1%

**of Greek** 

**shoreline SLR 0,5 m SLR 1 m** 

0.3 10^3

€/km2

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

coefficients which were adopted in the current analysis are presented in Table 9.

future damages would also be diminished (Karageorgis et al, 2006).

aesthetic/recreational 0.1 10^3

2100 is presented per land use and value type in Table 10.

and 3%. The results are presented in Tables 11 and 12 respectively.

Housing & Touristic

Wetlands

land use.

Housing & Touristic

land use.

Housing & Touristic

land use for discount rate 1%.


Table 7. Present value of total financial loss per land use for discount rate 3% (not including aesthetic/recreational/ storm surge damages).

The aggregated results are presented in Table 8 under three discounting assumptions: 0%, 1% and 3%.


Table 8. Total long-term financial loss of SLR in Greek coastal zone under different discount rates (10^3 €) (not including aesthetic/recreational/ storm surge damages).

At this point we need to remind the reader that the estimated loss in Tables 4, 5 and 6, are in their majority expressions of use values, with the possible exception of wetland areas, the transferred value of which might include, in part, non-use values. But non-use value components (e.g. cultural and spiritual) comprise a non-negligible part of the total economic value of coastal ecosystems in Mediterranean countries (Langford et al, 2001, Remoundou et al 2009).

To support the aforementioned position, and aiming at providing an approximate expression of the potential loss of these values, we also quantify the aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual values of the Greek coastal zone. The estimation is based on transferring the corresponding values from Brenner et al. (2010) study, where the aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value of sandy and wetland areas of Katalonia, Spain, were estimated. A discussion could be raised at this point on whether adding up those values in the previous sum consists a double counting in our estimated loss due to SLR. This position could be founded on the fact that we already used market price values for housing, so one could suppose that the market had already integrated those values (at least the aesthetic/recreational) into housing prices. Ledoux et al state that 'the sociocultural and historical contexts in which environmental assets exist provide for alternative dimensions of environmental value which may not be captured by the market paradigm'.

To minimize the possibility of overestimating our economic assessments, we abide to a strategy of using conservative estimates of financial losses while trying to avoid double counting. On the other hand, as long as we do not control for induced market adjustments, future damage estimates may be grossly overestimated. For example, the housing/tourist value of the coastal land represents a significant parameter in our damage estimates. Assuming risks regarding accelerated SLR and increasing incidents of extreme weather effects come gradually to the fore, a well functioning market for coastal land will probably internalize and discount future hazards. As a consequence, land values in coastal areas

Table 7. Present value of total financial loss per land use for discount rate 3% (not including

The aggregated results are presented in Table 8 under three discounting assumptions: 0%,

Table 8. Total long-term financial loss of SLR in Greek coastal zone under different discount

At this point we need to remind the reader that the estimated loss in Tables 4, 5 and 6, are in their majority expressions of use values, with the possible exception of wetland areas, the transferred value of which might include, in part, non-use values. But non-use value components (e.g. cultural and spiritual) comprise a non-negligible part of the total economic value of coastal ecosystems in Mediterranean countries (Langford et al, 2001, Remoundou et

To support the aforementioned position, and aiming at providing an approximate expression of the potential loss of these values, we also quantify the aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual values of the Greek coastal zone. The estimation is based on transferring the corresponding values from Brenner et al. (2010) study, where the aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value of sandy and wetland areas of Katalonia, Spain, were estimated. A discussion could be raised at this point on whether adding up those values in the previous sum consists a double counting in our estimated loss due to SLR. This position could be founded on the fact that we already used market price values for housing, so one could suppose that the market had already integrated those values (at least the aesthetic/recreational) into housing prices. Ledoux et al state that 'the sociocultural and historical contexts in which environmental assets exist provide for alternative dimensions of environmental value which may not be captured by the market paradigm'. To minimize the possibility of overestimating our economic assessments, we abide to a strategy of using conservative estimates of financial losses while trying to avoid double counting. On the other hand, as long as we do not control for induced market adjustments, future damage estimates may be grossly overestimated. For example, the housing/tourist value of the coastal land represents a significant parameter in our damage estimates. Assuming risks regarding accelerated SLR and increasing incidents of extreme weather effects come gradually to the fore, a well functioning market for coastal land will probably internalize and discount future hazards. As a consequence, land values in coastal areas

NPV (0%) 355,760,113 649,342,831 NPV (1%) 145,289,294 265,185,888 NPV (3%) 24,877,517 45,407,106

rates (10^3 €) (not including aesthetic/recreational/ storm surge damages).

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

**SLR 0.5m SLR 1m** 

**Land use Total financial loss 2010 (10^3 €)** 

aesthetic/recreational/ storm surge damages).

1% and 3%.

al 2009).

Housing & Touristic 24,316,576 44,113,412 Wetlands 9,650 17,272 Forests 11 36 Agriculture 551,279 1,276,386 Total 24,877,517 45,407,106 should gradually depreciate solely as a consequence of costal risk anticipation. Therefore, future damages would also be diminished (Karageorgis et al, 2006).

Regarding the estimation of aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual loss, the cost coefficients which were adopted in the current analysis are presented in Table 9.


Table 9. Values for the average value coefficients, the length and the area of the coastline per land use.

The estimated aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual loss from the case studies is then projected to the whole Greek territory. The total loss of SLR for the Greek coastal zone in 2100 is presented per land use and value type in Table 10.


Table 10. Total aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss of SLR in 2100 per land use.

The above estimates in 2100 were converted to present values using discount rates of 1% and 3%. The results are presented in Tables 11 and 12 respectively.


Table 11. Present value of aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss of SLR per land use for discount rate 1%.

Linking Sea Level Rise Damage and Vulnerability Assessment: The Case of Greece 391

population, the total value for protection from short term SLR for Greek households

Reducing vulnerability is a goal for preventative adaptation. Recent literature regarding vulnerability and adaptation, accentuates the need to take measures and plan policies on two levels: 1. Technological, 2. Institutional and behavioral. Assessment of vulnerability and risks (used as input for decision making), must also be implemented on two levels: objective and subjective (Fischhof, 1995; Slovic, 1979; Douglas, 1982; Adams, 1995; Kasperson, 1988; Kontogianni et al., 2008). By subjective assessment of risks, we mean the social perceptions of risk which are not necessarily identical to the objective assessment. For a more thorough understanding of the social perceptions of risk due to climate change in Greece, two research projects were designed and implemented, in Lesvos in 2010 and in Crete on January 2011. Their findings are comparable and demonstrate the dynamics in the respondents' perceptions, compared to a similar research conducted for the first time in Greece in South Evoia, in 2003- 2004 (Kontogianni 2011). Among others, the following areas were investigated: whether respondents were aware of the climate change , whether they were aware of the causes and which they believe these causes are, their level of trust in institutions, how important they assess that the various climate change impacts are, whether they are prepared to cope with them as well as if they are willing to incur costs in order to protect themselves (from the impacts). The research in Evoia, a coastal region close to Athens, performed in 2003, shows that 87.4% out of 183 respondents regards that in a global level, climate change constitutes a very important problem, while only 2.4% believes it is of no importance. For their personal welfare, climate change represents an important risk factor (79.7%), while only 7.3% regard it irrelevant to their lives. Concerning impacts on biodiversity, 59.2% of the respondents express

During July-August 2010 in Lesvos island, 312 respondents were asked about climate change. The majority (97.1%) is aware of the climate change, and 58.8% of them believe that it is directly influencing their lives. Out of the 312 respondents 27.3% believe that climate change impacts will be visible and destructive within the next 20 years, while 12.9% within the next 100 years. Only 3 out of 312 people refused the existence of climate change impacts. The survey participants (islanders) were asked to rank and assess the severity of certain impacts. Results are given in Table 14. It is quite conceivable that 91.9% rank impacts on

**important Important Very** 

**important** 

**Extremely important** 

**Not so** 

**resources** 0,6% 1% 13,5% 33,9% 51% **Ecosystems** 1% 3,2% 20,3% 45,8% 29,7%

**availability** 0,6% 1,9% 19,5% 33,1% 44,8% **Coasts** 1% 7,1% **18,5% 35,7% 37,7% Health** 0,6% 2,3% 9,1% 21,0% 67% Table 14. Climate change impacts assesment by survey respondents (Lesvos island, Greece,

**4.3 Social perceptions for climate change, SLR and storm surges** 

serious concerns, while 13.8% does not worry about it.

**importance** 

coasts important to extremely important.

**Impacts on Of no** 

**Water** 

**Food** 

summer 2010).

amounts to 621,767,426 €.


Table 12. Present value of aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss per land use for discount rate 3%.

The aggregated results are presented in Table 13 under three discounting assumptions: 0%, 1% and 3%.


Table 13. Total aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss of SLR in Greek coastal zone under different discount rates (10^3 €).

#### **4.2 Welfare losses due to storm surges: The short-term impacts**

Storm surges are the short-term aspect of the SLR phenomenon, with significant annual impacts on coastal areas. Knowledge of sea level extremes is important for coastal planning purposes (Marcos et al., 2009; Krestenitis et al., 2010). We consider it necessary to include these impacts in our study, due to their economic aspects and their potential yearly repetitiveness, which may induce an increase in coastal vulnerability. But since economic data on short term damages are limited and do not allow for extrapolation of loss to the total Greek coastal zone, an additional stated preference survey was conducted in order to elicit the social cost of storm surges (Kontogianni, 2011).The social cost of storm surges is defined as the maximum Wilingness to Pay to avoid the loss. As Ledoux et al. (2001) describe it 'in environmental economics, an individual preference-based value system operates in which the damages from environmental loss are measured by social opportunity cost . The assumption is that environmental goods and services are of instrumental value and some individual is willing to pay for the satisfaction of a preference. It is taken as axiomatic that individuals almost always make choices, subject to an income budget constraint, which benefit themselves or enhance their welfare. The social value of environmental resource committed to some use is then defined as the aggregation of private values'.

In Kontogianni 2011 an open ended contingent valuation survey was designed where participants were asked their willingness to pay to fund the construction of storm surge protection works in their area. The mean willingness to pay of the respondents was statistically estimated at 200.7 € per household (standard deviation = 286 €).

According to the "Report of Greece on Coastal Zone Management" (YPEXODE, 2006), coastal populations represent 85% of the total population (10,934,097 inhabitants), that is 9,293,982 inhabitants. Assuming an average of 3 persons per household, the total number amounts to 3,674,381 Greek households, out of which 3,097,994 are located in coastal areas. Using the mean value of 200.7 € per household, and extrapolating this to the Greek coastal

aesthetic/recreational 59,075 107,241 cultural/spiritual 101 168

cultural/spiritual 70 126 Total 59,253 107,556

**SLR 0.5m SLR 1m** 

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

**Land use Value Total loss 2010 (10^3 €)** 

Wetlands aesthetic/recreational 7 21

NPV (0%) 847,340 1,538,100 NPV (1%) 346,046 628,146 NPV (3%) 59,253 107,556 Table 13. Total aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss of SLR in Greek

coastal zone under different discount rates (10^3 €).

**4.2 Welfare losses due to storm surges: The short-term impacts** 

committed to some use is then defined as the aggregation of private values'.

statistically estimated at 200.7 € per household (standard deviation = 286 €).

In Kontogianni 2011 an open ended contingent valuation survey was designed where participants were asked their willingness to pay to fund the construction of storm surge protection works in their area. The mean willingness to pay of the respondents was

According to the "Report of Greece on Coastal Zone Management" (YPEXODE, 2006), coastal populations represent 85% of the total population (10,934,097 inhabitants), that is 9,293,982 inhabitants. Assuming an average of 3 persons per household, the total number amounts to 3,674,381 Greek households, out of which 3,097,994 are located in coastal areas. Using the mean value of 200.7 € per household, and extrapolating this to the Greek coastal

Table 12. Present value of aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss per land

The aggregated results are presented in Table 13 under three discounting assumptions: 0%,

Storm surges are the short-term aspect of the SLR phenomenon, with significant annual impacts on coastal areas. Knowledge of sea level extremes is important for coastal planning purposes (Marcos et al., 2009; Krestenitis et al., 2010). We consider it necessary to include these impacts in our study, due to their economic aspects and their potential yearly repetitiveness, which may induce an increase in coastal vulnerability. But since economic data on short term damages are limited and do not allow for extrapolation of loss to the total Greek coastal zone, an additional stated preference survey was conducted in order to elicit the social cost of storm surges (Kontogianni, 2011).The social cost of storm surges is defined as the maximum Wilingness to Pay to avoid the loss. As Ledoux et al. (2001) describe it 'in environmental economics, an individual preference-based value system operates in which the damages from environmental loss are measured by social opportunity cost . The assumption is that environmental goods and services are of instrumental value and some individual is willing to pay for the satisfaction of a preference. It is taken as axiomatic that individuals almost always make choices, subject to an income budget constraint, which benefit themselves or enhance their welfare. The social value of environmental resource

Housing & Touristic

1% and 3%.

use for discount rate 3%.

population, the total value for protection from short term SLR for Greek households amounts to 621,767,426 €.

#### **4.3 Social perceptions for climate change, SLR and storm surges**

Reducing vulnerability is a goal for preventative adaptation. Recent literature regarding vulnerability and adaptation, accentuates the need to take measures and plan policies on two levels: 1. Technological, 2. Institutional and behavioral. Assessment of vulnerability and risks (used as input for decision making), must also be implemented on two levels: objective and subjective (Fischhof, 1995; Slovic, 1979; Douglas, 1982; Adams, 1995; Kasperson, 1988; Kontogianni et al., 2008). By subjective assessment of risks, we mean the social perceptions of risk which are not necessarily identical to the objective assessment. For a more thorough understanding of the social perceptions of risk due to climate change in Greece, two research projects were designed and implemented, in Lesvos in 2010 and in Crete on January 2011. Their findings are comparable and demonstrate the dynamics in the respondents' perceptions, compared to a similar research conducted for the first time in Greece in South Evoia, in 2003- 2004 (Kontogianni 2011). Among others, the following areas were investigated: whether respondents were aware of the climate change , whether they were aware of the causes and which they believe these causes are, their level of trust in institutions, how important they assess that the various climate change impacts are, whether they are prepared to cope with them as well as if they are willing to incur costs in order to protect themselves (from the impacts). The research in Evoia, a coastal region close to Athens, performed in 2003, shows that 87.4% out of 183 respondents regards that in a global level, climate change constitutes a very important problem, while only 2.4% believes it is of no importance. For their personal welfare, climate change represents an important risk factor (79.7%), while only 7.3% regard it irrelevant to their lives. Concerning impacts on biodiversity, 59.2% of the respondents express serious concerns, while 13.8% does not worry about it.

During July-August 2010 in Lesvos island, 312 respondents were asked about climate change. The majority (97.1%) is aware of the climate change, and 58.8% of them believe that it is directly influencing their lives. Out of the 312 respondents 27.3% believe that climate change impacts will be visible and destructive within the next 20 years, while 12.9% within the next 100 years. Only 3 out of 312 people refused the existence of climate change impacts. The survey participants (islanders) were asked to rank and assess the severity of certain impacts. Results are given in Table 14. It is quite conceivable that 91.9% rank impacts on coasts important to extremely important.


Table 14. Climate change impacts assesment by survey respondents (Lesvos island, Greece, summer 2010).

Linking Sea Level Rise Damage and Vulnerability Assessment: The Case of Greece 393

Tables 16 and 17 present the total SLR cost for discount rates of 1% and 3% correspondingly. Total cost here means the sum of long-term SLR, short-term SLR and non-use values (aesthetic/recreational and cultural/spiritual value loss). The total discounted SLR cost

**SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

**Total loss 2010 (10^3 €) SLR 0.5 m SLR 1 m** 

**Loss Total loss 2010 (10^3 €)** 

Table 16. Present value of total cost of SLR for discount rate 1%.

Table 17. Present value of total cost of SLR for discount rate 3%.

management plans for these zones.

Long-term SLR 145,289,294 265,185,888 Short-term SLR 621,767 621,767 Non-use values 346,046 628,146 **Total** 146,257,107 266,435,801

Long-term SLR 24,877,517 45,407,106 Short-term SLR 621,767 621,767 Non-use values 59,253 107,556 **Total** 25,558,537 46,136,429

Our study shows that there is an imperative need to study Greek coastal areas that are at high risk of flooding. This need is expanded to the detailed diagnosis/forecasting of the coastal zone's vulnerability also due to changes in the frequency/intensity of extreme weather phenomena (storm surges). From an institutional aspect, EU member states, according to Directive 2007/60/EC, must undertake a preliminary assessment of river basins flood risk (including coastal zone) by year 2011, aiming to identify areas where flooding is likely to occur. Moreover, by year 2013, member states must develop risk assessment maps for these areas, while by year 2015, member states must prepare flood risk

The principal determinant of a society's capacity to adapt to climate change is likely to be access to resources. Such access is determined by entitlements, which are often the product of external political factors. Therefore, poverty, inequality, isolation and marginalization can all undermine entitlements of individuals and groups (Adger et al., 2005). In Greece due to the imminent economic crisis the country is currently experiencing, poverty is a threatening factor; inequality is a social characteristic due to corruption; so entitlements of individuals and groups are under threat of undermining. A particularly coastal country facing SLR impacts finds itself within a vulnerable status. Is the country going to bounce back after the economic shock and prepare itself for adaptation to SLR? According to Tompkins et al. (2005) the basic preconditions for resilience are: ability to self-organize, ability to buffer disturbance and capacity for learning and adapting. Or as Handmer (1996) puts it: Stability is sought but change constantly redraws the playing field and demands redefinition of the

equals 2% of the Greek GDP (in 2010 prices).

**Loss** 

rules.

Similar results were obtained from the implementation of a similar study in Crete island (January 2011) on the perceptions of locals referring to weather extremes. A random sample of 100 people were personally interviewed. Half of the respondents (50%) is aware of the climate change, while 17.5% has no information on the subject. Regarding the time horizon of the climate change impacts 57.5% of them believe that it is directly influencing their lives. Out of 100 usable questionnaires, 17.5% believe that climate change impacts will be visible and destructive within the next 20 years, while 20% believes so within the next 100 years. Only 5% refused the existence of climate change impacts. As in the Lesvos survey, participants (islanders) were asked to rank and assess the severity of certain impacts. Results are given in Table 15. It is quite conceivable that the majority (97.5%) rank impacts on coasts important to extremely important.


Table 15. Climate change impacts assesment by survey respondents (Crete island, Greece, January 2011).

In both surveys water and food availability seem to be the highest social concerns as far specific impacts of climate change are concerned.
