Content uploaded by Daniel Scott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Scott on Oct 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]
On: 13 March 2013, At: 12:22
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
The vulnerability of Caribbean coastal
tourism to scenarios of climate change
related sea level rise
Daniel Scott a , Murray Charles Simpson b & Ryan Sim a
a Department of Geography and Environmental Management,
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
b Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of
Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Rd., Oxford, OX1 3QY,
UK
Version of record first published: 06 Jul 2012.
To cite this article: Daniel Scott , Murray Charles Simpson & Ryan Sim (2012): The vulnerability
of Caribbean coastal tourism to scenarios of climate change related sea level rise, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 20:6, 883-898
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699063
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 20, No. 6, July 2012, 883–898
The vulnerability of Caribbean coastal tourism to scenarios
of climate change related sea level rise
Daniel Scotta∗, Murray Charles Simpsonband Ryan Sima
aDepartment of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada; bOxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins
Building, South Parks Rd., Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK
(Received 12 March 2012; final version received 25 May 2012)
Sea level rise (SLR) is considered a growing, certain and prominent consequence of an-
thropogenic climate change. Despite the high value of tourism properties and economic
activity in the coastal zone, the tourism sector is largely absent from the SLR literature.
This study created a geo-referenced database of 906 major coastal resort properties in 19
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries to assess their potential risk to a scenario
of one-metre SLR. An estimated 266 (29%) resort properties would be partially or fully
inundated by one-metre SLR; between 440 (49%) and 546 (60%) of resort properties
would be at risk of beach erosion damage associated with the same SLR scenario. In
addition, many resorts would experience significant losses of beach area prior to resort
property loss. The vulnerability and the adaptive capacity of individual coastal tourism
properties and destination communities is argued to differ substantially. Losses of over
50% of coastal properties are likely in five countries, three of which are highly de-
pendent on tourism. These differentials would transform the competitive position and
sustainability of coastal tourism destinations in the region, with important implications
for property values, potential tourism revenues, insurance costs, destination marketing,
as well as local and national economies.
Keywords: climate change; sea level rise; coastal tourism; Caribbean; adaptation;
geographic information system
Introduction
From the ancient Roman Empire, to medical tourism in the middle ages, to the emer-
gence of all-inclusive coastal resorts in the twentieth century, the seaside holds a special
place in the development of tourism. Today, coastal tourism is considered by many to be
the largest segment of the global tourism industry (Hall, 2001; Honey & Krantz, 2007).
The socioeconomic impacts of mass coastal tourism are varied and typically highly uneven
within coastal communities. This is often more pronounced in developing countries where
coastal tourism may dominate the local economy, and therefore can be far more culturally
invasive (Honey & Krantz, 2007; Jennings, 2004; Stonich, 2000). The environmental im-
pacts of unplanned coastal tourism development have been well documented and include
the destruction of coastal habitat (mangroves, seagrass beds, wetlands) and diminished
biodiversity, over consumption and draw down of freshwater aquifers, water pollution and
subsequent impacts on marine species and coral reefs, increased erosion and over-fishing
∗Corresponding author. Email: dj2scott@uwaterloo.ca
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699063
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
884 D. Scott et al.
(Duval, 2004; Hall, 2001; Jennings, 2004). Nonetheless, after 60 years of mass sun, sand
and sea (3S) tourism development, growth in coastal tourism remains strong in many re-
gional markets, with emerging economy markets and trends to “residential tourism”, which
integrates beach resorts with vacation homes and condos, important contemporary drivers
of growth (Honey & Krantz, 2007).
Coastal environments are among the most physically dynamic on Earth, yet there exists
a tremendous stability bias with respect to coastal development. Coasts are influenced
by short-term extreme storm events that can alter shore areas in the matter of hours
as well as long-term gradual processes, such as changes in sea level. Importantly, both
of these processes are projected to accelerate in the twenty-first century as a result of
anthropogenic climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(IPCC, 2012; Solomon et al., 2007) concluded that there has been a discernible human
influence on several aspects of climate, including air and ocean surface temperatures,
precipitation patterns (distribution and intensity), wind patterns and the intensity of some
extreme storm events (such as extra-tropical storm tracks in both hemispheres). Because
of limited observing capabilities in the past, the IPCC (2012) has low confidence in any
observed long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e. intensity, frequency, duration).
However, it projects that average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase
in the decades ahead, while the global frequency of tropical cyclones is likely to remain
essentially unchanged (IPCC, 2012). Increased mean sea level rise (SLR) coupled with the
likely increase in tropical cyclone maximum wind speed, would be a particularly salient
issue for tropical small island states.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) reported that the mean global sea surface
rose by 1.8 mm/year over the period 1961–1993 and by 3.1 mm/year between 1993 and 2003
(Solomon et al., 2007) and that anthropogenic climate change contributed to this accelera-
tion (Nicholls et al., 2007). More recent measurements indicate the rate of SLR has reached
3.4 mm/year between 1995 and 2010, far higher than the average rate of 0.1–0.2 mm/year
increase recorded by geological data over the last 3000 years (Rahmstorf, 2010).
The IPCC projected a global SLR of 0.18–0.59 m from 1990 to 2100 (Soloman et al.,
2007). These projections of future SLR assumed a near-zero net contribution from the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets because of uncertainty about future ice mass changes
in these regions. SLR projections have been vigorously discussed since the IPCC AR4 in
2007. Accumulating evidence suggests that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
have been losing mass at an accelerating rate over the past two decades (Rignot, Koppes,
& Velicogna, 2010), leading a number of experts to criticize the IPCC’s SLR projections
as highly conservative (Hansen, 2007; Oppenheimer, O’Neill, Webster, & Agrawala, 2007;
Pfeffer, Harper, & O’Neel, 2008).
Table 1 provides a summary of the most recent projections of global SLR over the
twenty-first century and compares these newer studies to the IPCC AR4 projections and the
continuation of current trends. Recent studies project the rate of global SLR will continue to
accelerate in the decades ahead and that the total SLR by the end of the century could be as
much as 1.5–2 m above levels of the late twentieth century (Grinstead, Moore, & Jevrejeva,
2009; Horton et al., 2008; Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, & Woodworth, 2008; Vermeer &
Rahmstorf, 2009). That these upper estimates would occur is highly unlikely, as are the
lower estimated range, however the central estimates of four of the five most recent studies
exceed 1 m SLR by the end of the twenty-first century.
Importantly, due to gravitational and geological factors, the rate of SLR is not expected
to be uniform globally: in the Caribbean it is projected to exceed the worldwide average
SLR by a factor of 1.2–1.4 (Tamisiae & Mitrovica, 2011).
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 885
Table 1. Scenarios of global sea level rise in the twenty-first century.
2100
2050∗Low range Central estimate High range
Continuation of current trend
(3.4 mm/year)
13.6 cm — 30.6 cm —
IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007) 8.9–23.8 cm 18 cm — 59 cm
Rahmstorf (2007) 17–32 cm 50 cm 90 cm 140 cm
Horton et al. (2008) ∼30 cm — 100 cm —
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) ∼40 cm 75 cm 124 cm 180 cm
Grinstead et al. (2009) — 40 cm 125 cm 215 cm
Jevrejeva et al. (2008) — 60 cm 120 cm 175 cm
∗Where not specified, interpreted from original sources.
Although the exact magnitude of future global SLR remains uncertain, it is considered
to be one of the most certain and most prominent consequences of anthropogenic climate
change (Solomon et al., 2007). Consequently, a considerable literature has developed over
the last 20 years that examines the potential impacts of SLR on ecosystems and society,
including the number of vulnerable people, economic implications and even the physical
existence of some sovereign nations (Nicholls et al., 2007; Nicholls et al., 2011). Impor-
tantly, none of the regional and global scale studies of the impacts of SLR have specifically
examined potential damage to the tourism sector or compared the relative vulnerability of
coastal tourism to other economic sectors. The absence of tourism studies, despite the high
value of tourism properties and economic activity in the coastal zone, may be explained
by the lack of readily available geospatial data sets of coastal tourism assets (e.g. resorts,
beaches, transport infrastructure) at the regional or global scale.
With coastal tourism identified as the largest tourism segment globally and massive
continuing investment in coastal tourism properties, a number of scholars have observed
that remarkably little analysis of the implications of SLR for the tourism sector has been
undertaken (Anning, Dominey-Howes, & Withycombe, 2009; Buckley, 2008; G ¨
ossling &
Hall, 2006; Honey & Krantz, 2007; Moreno & Becken, 2009; Phillips & Jones, 2006;
Scott et al., 2008; Weaver, 2011). Buckley (2008, pp. 72–73) noted, “Most coastal tourism
destinations ... seem to have remained remarkably blas´
e about rising sea levels, even
though these are one of the best-documented aspects of global change”.
This paper contributes to addressing this important knowledge gap in the rapidly de-
veloping literature on climate change and sustainable tourism by assessing the potential
impact of projected SLR on the coastal tourism infrastructure of 19 countries within the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The Caribbean was identified as a priority for anal-
ysis of the vulnerability of coastal tourism to SLR for several reasons. The Caribbean
has the most tourism-intensive economy (i.e. tourism represents the greatest proportion of
the regional economy) among the 12 regions ranked by the WTTC (2011), where tourism
represents 14% of GDP, 13% of employment (2.2 million jobs), 12% of investment and
17% of exports. The Caribbean has also been repeatedly ranked as one of the major tourism
regions most vulnerable to climate change (Deutsche Bank Research, 2008; Hall, 2008;
Scott et al., 2008), in part due to the continued dominance of coastal tourism in the region
(Cameron & Gatewood, 2008; Duval, 2004). More broadly, many of the Caribbean coun-
tries also exemplify the characteristics that are thought to make Small Island Developing
States (SIDS) particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including: relative
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
886 D. Scott et al.
isolation, small land masses, concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal ar-
eas, a limited economic base and dependency on natural resources, combined with limited
financial, technical and institutional capacity for adaptation (IPCC, 2007). Finally, a lack
of detailed SLR impact analyses in the region had been noted in the literature (Dasgupta,
Laplante, Meisner, Wheeler, & Yan, 2008).
The paper begins with an overview of SLR scenarios for the twenty-first century
and a review of the extant literature on SLR and tourism. The subsequent section sets
out the procedures used to develop a regional inventory of major coastal tourism resort
infrastructure and integrate it into a Geographic Information System (GIS) with a satellite-
based Digital Elevation Model. The sea level scenarios and methods for estimating the
inundation and erosion impacts of SLR are also outlined. The regional- and country-specific
flooding and erosion impacts associated with various levels of SLR are then described. The
paper concludes with discussion of adaptation strategies, including the special challenges
for coastal tourism, and associated policy and planning implications.
Sea level rise and tourism
The impacts of SLR on coastal areas are many, but those most pertinent to tourism include:
inundation of coastal lands, erosion and loss of coastal habitat and beach area through
the process of “coastal squeeze” (where the coastal margin is prevented from landward
migration by a fixed boundary such as a sea wall or road), impeded drainage and increased
risk of riverine flooding, salinity intrusion into freshwater supplies and higher water tables
which can adversely affect the stability of foundations of coastal infrastructure.
While infrastructure damage is the paramount SLR risk to coastal tourism, the loss of
beach resources represents a second significant impact that has already begun. Widespread
beach erosion, with 70% of the world’s monitored beaches observed to be receding (Bird,
1985), has been attributed to the process of beaches repositioning themselves further inland
in response to ongoing SLR. SLR trends in the Caribbean have roughly paralleled global
trends over the last 30 years (Nicholls & Cazenave, 2010) and Cambers (2009) argues
that this was undoubtedly a causative factor contributing the observed erosion at a large
majority of 113 monitored beaches in eight Caribbean countries (an average of 0.5 m/year
between 1985 and 2000).
The implications of SLR for the future of coastal tourism development were first
discussed more than 20 years ago by Gable (1987, 1990) and Leatherman (1989). More
recent publications have further examined the potential policy and planning responses to
SLR and linkages to coastal zone management (Hamilton, 2007; Moreno & Becken, 2009;
Phillips & Jones, 2006; Scott et al., 2008), while others have focused on estimating the
potential impacts of SLR on tourism infrastructure and coastal resources, the potential
demand side response of tourists to SLR impacts as well as adaptation responses. These
two main focal themes are briefly reviewed.
The potential impacts of SLR on tourism infrastructure and coastal resources (mainly
beaches) have been examined in a number of locations. In the World Heritage Site of
Venice, Italy, a fivefold increase in flooding events in San Marco square occurred between
1900 and 1990 (from 7 to 40 times per year) and it was estimated that with a further 0.3 m
SLR, flooding events would increase to 360 days of the year (Francia & Juhasz, 1993).
Similarly, large areas of the historical city of Alexandria, Egypt were found to be at risk to a
0.5 m SLR, including a series of high-value cultural tourism sites and beach areas (El-Raey,
Dewindar, & El-Hattab, 1999). On the Island of Martinique, Schleupner (2008) found that
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 887
a large majority of tourist beaches (83%) would be affected by coastal flooding and up to
62% of coastal infrastructure (tourism and nontourism) would be at risk to damage by SLR
induced erosion. In Prince Edward Island, Canada, flooding and erosion associated with sea
levels projected by the IPCC for the later decades of the twenty-first century were estimated
to put over 300 designated heritage properties (key tourism attractions and, in some cases,
accommodation) and nearly 50% of other coastal tourism properties at risk (Environment
Canada, 2002).
A series of studies in the United States have found substantial potential economic
impacts associated with SLR on coastal tourism and related recreation properties. Stanton
and Ackerman (2007) estimated that with a 0.68 m SLR, impacts to the tourism sector
in Florida would include half of existing beaches, 74 airports, 1362 hotels–motels and
over 19,000 historic structures. Resultant losses in tourism properties and visitation were
estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars by 2050. A study of SLR impacts on tourism
and coastal property at five major tourism beach areas in California estimated that a 1.4 m
SLR could cause over US $2 billion in damage by 2100 (King, McGregor, & Whittett,
2011). In North Carolina, a 46 cm rise in sea level would put US $1.2 billion worth of
residential property (mostly vacation home properties) at risk in four counties alone and
cause substantial losses in recreation benefits from reduced opportunities for beach trips
(US $3.5 billion discounted at a 2% rate) and fishing trips (US $430 million using a 2%
discount rate) (Bin, Dumas, Poulter, & Whitehead, 2007).
Relatively few studies have examined the potential impact of beach loss on coastal
tourism demand. In Europe, an early study by Braun et al. (1999) used the combined
scenarios of temperature and precipitation changes with SLR and beach loss to examine the
impact on the likelihood of traveling to the Baltic and North Sea coasts of Germany. With
increased temperatures the likelihood of choosing the North German coast for a holiday was
only slightly higher than the scenario where climate change impacts on the Mediterranean
were very limited. In scenarios where some potential negative impacts on the German coasts
occurred (e.g. beach erosion, increased frequency of rain), the likelihood of visiting was
substantially lower, even when possible adaptations were included (e.g. greater setbacks
of tourism infrastructure, more diversified indoor activities). Similar scenarios of climatic
and environmental change on the East Anglian coast of the United Kingdom by Coombes
and Jones (2010) resulted in minor reductions in visitation (less than 1%) from beach loss
(though beach loss was presented as 13–16 m to beaches with widths of over 250 m), but
large gains through warmer temperatures (24–26%).
In the Caribbean, a survey of tourists on the islands of Barbados and Bonaire found that
under a severe scenario where “beaches largely disappeared”, 77% would be unwilling to
return to the 3S destination of Barbados for the same price, while 43% would be unwilling
to return to Bonaire, which is known as a dive tourism destination and where beaches are
not the primary tourism asset (Uyarra et al., 2005). Buzinde, Manuel-Navarrete, Kerstetter,
and Redclift (2010a) and Buzinde, Manuel-Navarrete, Yoo, and Morais (2010b) used qual-
itative approaches (tourist interviews and online tourist comments about destinations and
trip experiences) to examine tourist perceptions of beach erosion and attempts to restore the
beach in the Playacar, Mexico area. Tourists were classified into three response categories:
positive, negative and reconciliatory. Those with a positive view of the situation largely
focused on the additional recreational opportunities provided by the erosion control struc-
tures in the water (i.e. large sand filled geotextile bags). Those with negative reactions were
often unaware of the severely eroded beaches and had expected pristine, extensive beaches
portrayed in tourism marketing images. This discrepancy between promoted images and
reality left them feeling deceived. The reconciliatory group also viewed the beach erosion
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
888 D. Scott et al.
control measures as aesthetically unpleasant but understood they were part of ongoing work
to restore the beach through beach nourishment. Some of these tourists appeared aware of
the degraded condition of the beach before arrival and therefore did not have a sense of
misrepresentation by tourism operators. It is unclear what proportion each group repre-
sented or how the perceptions varied among specific market segments, which is important
in order to understand the potential impact on destination reputation and future demand.
It is also unclear as to the role prior knowledge of the degraded state of the beaches or
price discounts played in the varied interpretations of these three groups or their respective
intentions to return to this destination at the same price or at discounted prices.
Studies of adaptive responses to SLR in tourism destinations are even more limited. An
early study by Leatherman (1989) examined the costs of beach nourishment to stabilize
major recreational beaches in 21 coastal states in the United States. The costs through to
2060 were estimated as between US $6.5 billion (1990 dollars) under a 0.32 m SLR scenario
and $20.4 billion (1990 dollars) under a 0.95 m scenario. The estimated costs of beach
nourishment were far less than the damage associated with lost tourism and recreation
benefits and it was concluded that beach nourishment would be a primary adaptive by
communities and state tourism organizations.
Hamilton (2007) examined the implications of two adaptation approaches – levies and
beach nourishment – on the revenue of tourism accommodations in the coastal districts
of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. An increase in the length of levies would diminish the
aesthetics of the coastline, resulting in a reduction in the average price of accommodation
and loss of revenue of over €1.2 million per year, while beach nourishment would not
diminish accommodation revenues. The capital and maintenance costs of each adaptation
strategy were not compared.
Buckley’s (2008, p. 1) analysis of SLR adaptation by local government in Byron Bay,
Australia provides important insight into how misunderstandings or misrepresentations of
the likely effects of SLR were used by local government to “plac[e] severe and irrational
restrictions on development of residential and holiday accommodation” and “prevent beach-
front landowners from protecting their own properties against erosion”. In this situation
it is argued that climate change science was misused for political reasons and needlessly
damaged the destination’s tourism industry by driving investment to nearby communities
that did not adopt such restrictions on coastal properties. This case demonstrates the dan-
gers of speculation and lack of information on the magnitude and anticipated timelines of
potential impacts under varied SLR scenarios. This information is a prerequisite for coastal
management agencies, local governments, citizens and the tourism industry, to engage in
an informed dialogue on future coastal development and effective and equitable SLR adap-
tation options. Providing the 19 CARICOM countries some insight into these important
questions was the primary objective of the scenarios created in this study.
Methodology
Inventory of Caribbean coastal tourism infrastructure
The first step in this analysis was to develop an inventory of coastal tourism proper-
ties in the 19 CARICOM countries included in the study (see Table 2). Although Smith
Travel Research Inc. (WTTC, 2011) maintains a database of hotels/resorts in the Caribbean
(n =2282 in 2011), the geospatial coordinates (latitude and longitude) and elevation of
each hotel/resort are not available in this comprehensive data set. Consequently, a number
of information sources were used to develop a geospatial data set of coastal resort and hotel
properties. Accommodation lists from national tourism websites in all 19 countries were
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 889
Table 2. Country level SLR inundation and erosion impacts.
Tourism Number of Resort properties Resort properties Resort properties
CARICOM contribution coastal resort partially or fully inundated damaged by erosion damaged by erosion
member country to GDP (2011)bproperties by 1 m SLR (50 m scenario) (100 m scenario)
Anguillaa64% 60 38 35 42
Antigua & Barbuda 74% 99 10 34 44
Barbados 47% 75 6 42 50
Belize No data 44 32 42 44
British Virgin Islanda58% 14 8 5 6
Cayman Island a24% 63 11 15 25
Dominica 25% 17 0 5 6
Grenada 24% 45 5 14 19
Guyana No data 10 0 0 0
Haiti 6% 28 13 14 17
Jamaica 24% 105 8 34 52
Montserrat No data 1 0 0 0
St. Kitts & Nevis 28% 22 14 15 18
St. Lucia 46% 30 2 5 9
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 26% 21 2 8 16
Suriname No data 19 1 2 2
The Bahamas 18% 133 48 77 93
Trinidad & Tobago 7% 24 8 15 16
Turks & Caicos IslandaNo data 96 60 78 87
Total 906 266 (29%) 440 (49%) 546 (60%)
aAre associate members of CARICOM; bSource: WTTC (2011).
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
890 D. Scott et al.
used to develop an initial inventory of potential resorts/hotels on the coast. The geographic
location and elevation of each coastal resort/hotel was then verified using Google Earth
Pro c
before including it in the data set.
Only resorts/hotels within 100 m of the coast and that had a minimum of 50 rooms/100
beds were included in the sample. Major inland resorts along with small coastal vil-
las/guesthouses were not included. A total of 906 coastal properties digitized by the research
team were included in the analysis. Table 2 identifies the number of properties included
from each country.
Construction of geographic information system and digital terrain model
A GIS was constructed in ArcGIS c
using the best available geospatial data. CARICOM
country boundaries were derived from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency’s World
Vector Shoreline data set (NOAA, 2010). All inland lakes and depressions not connected to
the sea by rivers or artificial channels, and thus not affected by SLR, were masked out using
geospatial data obtained from version 2 of the Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-
resolution Shoreline Database (GHHS) (NOAA, 2010). Due to the small area of many of
the CARICOM nations, careful inspection for data completeness was performed. Approx-
imately 5000 unnamed country boundary polygons (mainly small islands) were inspected
and subsequently updated with corrected country identifications. After inspection, all of
the geospatial data was projected using the World Equal Area projection. The horizontal
datum used for the study was the World Geodetic System 1984. Latitude and longitude
geographic coordinates of the 906 tourism properties were presented in decimal degrees.
A continuous sink-filled digital terrain model (DTM) was created for the study area
using data from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
(ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM), which was recently made available to
the research community by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration (NASA) and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). The
horizontal resolution of the GDEM is 30 m per pixel and the vertical resolution 1 m. As
a research grade data set, the GDEM data was examined for quality and anomalies. Some
anomalies in the data were observed along the coasts of Guyana and Suriname due to cloud
cover during collection and other anomalies (METI, NASA & USGS, 2009). Consequently,
we have lower confidence in the findings for these two nations (their 29 resorts/hotels
represent 3% of the sample size).
Coastal flooding and erosion impact scenarios
Table 1 summarizes the most recent global SLR projections over the twenty-first century.
With the central estimates of four of five of studies exceeding 1 m and the rate of SLR
in the Caribbean region projected to exceed the global average by a factor of 1.2–1.4
(Tamisiae & Mitrovica, 2011), the SLR scenario selected for this study was +1 m. While
this scenario does not represent the worse-case scenario in the literature (and other recent
government SLR vulnerability assessments in the United States and the Netherlands [e.g.
Delta Commission, 2008; Herberger, Cooley, Herrera, Gleick, & Moore, 2009] have ex-
plored scenarios greater than 1 m), it is closer to the central estimates of most of the studies
in Table 1 and provides greater comparability with the larger number of regional and global
SLR impact assessments that use arbitrary 1 m incremental scenarios (e.g. Dasgupta et al.,
2008).
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 891
The potential inundation impacts associated with a 1 m SLR scenario were calculated
by overlaying the flooded contiguous coastal pixels in the DTM with the location of the
906 coastal resorts/hotels. A 100 m property buffer was applied to the central point of
each resort/hotel, and properties that contained a minimum of 10% of flooded pixels were
recorded as impacted by 1 m SLR.
Large areas of the Caribbean coast are highly susceptible to erosion, and beaches have
experienced accelerated erosion in recent decades (Cambers, 2009). Higher sea level is
expected to accelerate coastal erosion in these areas. The amount of coastal retreat due
to SLR can be estimated by several methods. In the absence of information necessary to
apply more advanced three-dimensional shoreline recession modeling techniques, which
was found to be almost universally the case throughout the Caribbean, two-dimensional
conceptual models like the Bruun Rule (Bruun, 1962) provide a means to complete a first-
order assessment of the implications of erosion related to SLR. Because of its simplicity,
the Bruun Rule has been widely applied in the study of erosion impacts resulting from SLR
(Aboudha & Woodroffe, 2006). It is based on the concept that an existing beach profile
will remain largely constant and as sea level increases, sediment required to maintain this
profile in deeper water is derived from erosion of the shore material. The readjustment of the
beach profile to an equilibrium state produces inland retreat of approximately 50–100 times
the vertical increase in sea level (i.e. for a 1 m SLR, 50–100 m of erosion is predicted).
It does not account for long-shore interactions. The Bruun Rule has been the subject of
some debate and criticism, but is still generally supported (Stive, 2004; Zhang, Douglas, &
Leatherman, 2004). This analysis examined the impacts of both the low and high range of
erosion response scenarios for the 906 coastal tourism properties.
Results
Of the 906 major coastal resort properties inventoried for this analysis, 266 (29%) were
found to be at risk of partial or full inundation by a 1 m rise in sea level (Table 2). The
analysis revealed that the potential inundation impacts of 1 m SLR would not be uniform
among the CARICOM countries, with inundation losses of more than 50% of coastal
properties in five countries (Anguilla, Belize, British Virgin Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis
and Turks and Caicos Islands). The greatest vulnerability is in Anguilla, British Virgin
Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands, where the relative economic importance of tourism
to the national economy is also very high.
A far higher number of coastal resort properties were found to be vulnerable to coastal
erosionassociatedwitha1mSLR(Table2).Aconservative interpretation of the Bruun
Rule – a 50 m erosion scenario in coastlines with unconsolidated beach materials – projected
440 (49%) coastal resort properties would be damaged. Using the Bruun Rule as typically
applied in the literature – a 100 m erosion scenario associated with 1 m SLR – a total of 546
(60%) coastal resort properties were projected to be damaged. The countries with coastal
resort properties at greatest risk to SLR-induced erosion damage were Belize and Turks
and Caicos Islands, with over 80% of resort properties at risk in the 50 m erosion scenario.
A further eight countries have over 50% of resort properties at risk in the 100 m erosion
scenario (Anguilla, Barbados, Haiti, St. Kitts and Nevis, The Bahamas and Trinidad and
Tobago).
Beaches are critical assets for tourism in the Caribbean and a primary design goal of
coastal resorts is to maintain an aesthetic of undisrupted ocean views and unhindered access
to beach areas. A critical observation from this analysis is that a much greater proportion of
resort front beach assets would be degraded or lost to inundation and accelerated erosion,
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
892 D. Scott et al.
Figure 1. “Coastal squeeze” of resort front beach asset.
as beaches would essentially have disappeared prior to damages to resort properties and
infrastructure. This process of lost beach area is identical to the “coastal squeeze” leading to
lost coastal wetlands and other habitats, where the coastal margin is squeezed between some
fixed natural or human-made landward boundary (e.g. a sea wall protecting a resort property
or resort buildings – see Figures 1 and 2) and the rising sea level. This process squeezes the
beach area until it is eventually lost. While significant loss of beach assets will have occurred
in all of the coastal resorts projected to be at risk to inundation and erosion associated with
a 1 m SLR scenario, the beach assets will have also been degraded at the coastal resort
properties not reported to be at risk in this analysis. Beach quality plays an important role
in the selection of Caribbean destinations and the price guests are willing to pay (Anning
et al., 2009; Ghermandi & Nunes, 2011). There is a chance that beach decline results in a
slippery slope toward destination decline. As beach resources degrade, price structures for
coastal accommodations begin to decline, affecting profitability and eventually resulting in
closures, unemployment and further decline in overall destination image. This analysis does
not account for the complex physical and socioeconomic interactions of the coastal tourism
system, and therefore underestimates the impact of SLR to coastal tourism properties
throughout the study area. Further scenario-based research is required to examine these
market complexities and interpret the implications for specific destination communities.
The differential vulnerability to SLR inundation and erosion among the 19 CARICOM
countries can be largely explained by three factors: the geophysical characteristics of the
islands and their different coastal topographic settings (e.g. extensive low coastal plains
below, low lying islands largely composed of unconsolidated materials, volcanic islands),
the proximity of resort properties to the coastline and the level of coastal structural protection
in place to prevent erosion impacts. While all countries currently have coastal set back
requirements for new resort construction, this was not always the case and the earlier the
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 893
Figure 2. Structural protection to preserve artificial beach area.
tourism development occurred in the country, the greater likelihood tourism infrastructure
will be in very close proximity to the shoreline. Similarly, the level of enforcement and
flexibility of exemptions of coastal set back and structural protection has also varied by
country and era of construction.
Discussion
A valid critique of many engineering and geomatics-based SLR studies is that they represent
only the potential impacts of future SLR and have not adequately accounted for adaptation
strategies. History demonstrates that societies will not idly watch high value land, infras-
tructure and cultural assets be lost to the sea. There are three response approaches to SLR:
retreat – in which coastal properties are abandoned and the shoreline and coastal ecosys-
tems allowed to shift landward; accommodation – where existing land uses continue, but the
risks to people and infrastructure are managed through elevated structures and risk sharing
strategies (e.g. flood insurance programs) and protection – where hard structures (e.g. sea
walls and dikes) or other “soft” engineered approaches (e.g. vegetation, beach nourishment,
dune construction) are used to protect the land from the sea and allow existing land uses to
continue with little modification. All have important environmental, economic and social
implications and the particular combination of these responses will vary substantially by
region and type of land use.
Nicholls et al. (2011) conclude that while the potential land loss and infrastructure
damage impacts of a 1–2 m SLR over the twenty-first century would be severe, these will
be partially avoided through widespread implementation and upgrade of coastal protection.
Although structural and “soft” engineering (particularly beach nourishment) protection
strategies have widespread application in coastal tourism destinations, their use for SLR
adaptation in the tourism sector presents some special challenges. Typical structural coastal
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
894 D. Scott et al.
protection is not well suited to the business objectives of coastal resorts: providing unob-
structed views of the sea and maintaining unhindered access to the beach and sea. While
structural protection can be easily designed to protect resort buildings, coastal squeeze will
mean that resorts will lose their critical beach asset (Figures 1 and 2) unless it is accompa-
nied by substantial investment in beach nourishment. The impact of contemporary beach
erosion illustrates the negative economic impact of beach loss on resort attractiveness, room
rates and property value (Buzinde et al., 2010a, 2010b; Cowell, Thom, Jones, Everts, &
Simanovic, 2006; Hamilton, 2007; Houston 2002) and serves as a useful analogue for the
impacts of SLR without beach nourishment. The available evidence suggests strongly that
when 3S tourism becomes 2S, price structures, profitability and destination image are put
at risk. The economics of structural protection and beach nourishment required to adapt
to 1 m SLR have not been adequately assessed. So while structural protection will be a
prudent course of action for certain tourism sector assets, such as airports, cruise ship
terminals and cities that function as important tourism destinations, it is uncertain whether
it would similarly represent an effective and economical response by coastal resorts that
must maintain beach area and aesthetics sufficient to attract international tourism clientele.
Engineered solutions, such as the artificial beach area preserved by a sea wall in Figure 2,
may be more suited to low-yield budget all-inclusive 3S tourism, where expansive natural
beach areas are not marketed and other factors (e.g. entertainment, shopping, price) are the
more salient decision criteria.
The adaptive capacity of coastal destinations to cope with SLR will be determined by
a number of key factors: policy and planning frameworks that enable or actively assist
coordinated structural protection and cost-sharing of beach nourishment; resort property
ownership and local taxation structures; insurability and insurance costs; the ability to afford
the major costs associated with structural protection and recurrent beach nourishment,
which typically must be redone every decade or sometimes after major storm events, and
the availability of affordable and environmentally sustainable sources of sand. For example,
major destinations with a cluster of large resorts owned by multinational corporations with
greater access to capital to afford coastal protection would have greater adaptive capacity
than small communities with less dense or only isolated resort development. This differential
adaptive capacity will alter the sustainability and competitive relationships among coastal
destinations over time, with the likely effect of further concentrating higher-yield coastal
tourism in destinations with capacity to maintain natural beach area.
Coastal retreat is a largely untested strategy for coastal tourism destinations. The plan-
ning required for coordinated retreat would be highly complex, severely challenging local
governments and planning authorities and would very likely result in major legal disputes,
substantial impacts on property values, a reduced taxation base and a decline in tourism
activity during this transitional phase. Nonetheless, this may become the only option for
destinations unable to afford structural protection and beach nourishment. Notably, retreat
may also be unavailable as an adaptation response where natural barriers or existing land
uses (e.g. residential areas, transportation corridors) physically or economically prevent
landward relocation of coastal tourism properties.
Conclusions
Using a geo-referenced database of over 906 major coastal resort properties in 19
CARICOM countries, it is estimated that 266 (29%) would be partially or fully inundated
by a 1 m rise in sea level. Between 440 (49%) and 546 (60%) of these resort properties
would be at risk to erosion damage associated with the same 1 m SLR, while a much
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 895
larger number would experience significant loses of beach assets. The adaptive capacity
of individual coastal tourism properties and destinations is argued to differ substantially,
with salient implications for destination competitiveness and the sustainability of coastal
tourism in some destinations.
With the inextricable link between coastal tourism and local and national economies
in the Caribbean, there remains an important need to improve SLR risk mapping by
obtaining high-resolution topographical and bathymetrical data sets (e.g. light detection
and ranging data) and assessing the adaptation options (policy, planning, design) available
to tourism properties and communities (e.g. where beach nourishment is feasible or natural
landward migration of beaches is possible). Such information is a prerequisite for coastal
management agencies, local governments, citizens and the tourism industry, to engage
in an informed dialogue on future coastal tourism development and begin the process of
mainstreaming SLR into existing scenarios, tourism master plans, institutions and regula-
tory frameworks. This improved information base is also essential to avoid maladaptation
(which is an action or process that increases vulnerability to climate change-related hazards
[Lim & Spanger-Siegfried, 2005]), such as continued tourism investment in high-risk zones
or the unjustified near-term restrictions on tourism development that could needlessly and
adversely affect property values and job creation. The tourism research community has an
important role in this endeavor to avoid asymmetric access to information on property risk
that could favor certain property owners and help foster participatory, community-based
adaptation processes.
A number of studies have found that tourism stakeholders indicate a clear need for
government leadership on climate change adaptation (see Scott, Hall, & G¨
ossling, 2012
for a review) and communications with coastal tourism stakeholders in the Caribbean
also reveal this to be particularly the case with respect to adaptation to SLR. The very
long timeframes of SLR impacts are considered largely incompatible with coastal tourism
investment and business planning, restricting SLR adaptation to a very low priority status.
Real estate speculation is a reality of coastal tourism development, with many investors
planning to divest from coastal resort projects within a few years and well before the typical
25–30 year life cycle of a coastal resort. Foreign ownership that increasingly dominates
coastal regions and often involves multiple layers of investors and managers (Honey &
Krantz, 2007) exacerbates these barriers to SLR adaptation planning.
In conclusion, this analysis represents but a first step in understanding the vulnerability
of tourism to SLR. Much more is needed to assess physical and socioeconomic adapta-
tion potential through the complex interaction of physical processes, tourism marketing,
tourist perceptions, coastal property markets, insurance, coastal management regulations
and protection cost structures and community planning responses.
While this study focused on the Caribbean region, it is clear that SLR will similarly
represent the preeminent long-term threat to the sustainability of coastal tourism in SIDS and
indeed coastal tourism destinations worldwide. It is, therefore, imperative that the coastal
tourism research community together with coastal management professionals initiate the
process of adapting to SLR, not because there is an impending catastrophe, but because
there will be important opportunities to avoid adverse impacts in the near-term, and because
the complex planning required for coastal management and protection (environmental
assessments, financing, land acquisition and construction) often takes decades to complete.
Acknowledgements
The United Nations Development Programme, the International Development Research Centre,
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Research Chair
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
896 D. Scott et al.
program supported aspects of this work. The respective contributions or these organizations are
greatly acknowledged. Further discussion of sectoral impacts of sea level rise in Caribbean can be
found in United Nations Development Programme (2010) Quantification and Magnitude of Losses
and Damages Resulting from the Impacts of Climate Change: Modelling the Transformational
Impacts and Costs of Sea Level Rise in the Caribbean. United Nations Development Programme,
Barbados, West Indies. Available at: http://www.bb.undp.org/uploads/file/pdfs/energy_environment/
Modelling%20the%20impacts%20and%20costs%20of%20SLR%20in%20the%20Cbean%20-%20
Final2011.pdf.
Notes on contributors
Dr Daniel Scott is a Canada Research Chair in Global Change and Tourism at the University of
Waterloo in Canada. He has worked on the human dimensions of climate change for over 10 years
and been a contributing author and expert reviewer for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. Dr Scott is the Chair of the World
Meteorological Organization’s Expert Team on climate and tourism and Co-chair of the International
Society of Biometeorology’s Commission on Climate Tourism and Recreation.
Dr Murray Simpson is a Senior Visiting Research Associate at the School of Geography and the
Environment, University of Oxford, UK and the Chief Executive Officer of the non-governmental
organization the CARIBSAVE Partnership.
Ryan Sim is a Geomatics Research Assistant at the Department of Geography and Environmental
Management, University of Waterloo, Canada.
References
Aboudha, P., & Woodroffe, C. (2006). International assessments of the vulnerability of coastal zone to
climate change, including an Australian perspective. Keswick, Australia: Australian Greenhouse
Office.
Anning, D., Dominey-Howes, D., & Withycombe, G. (2009). Valuing climate change impacts on
Sydney beaches to inform coastal management decisions. Management of Environmental Quality,
20(4), 408–421.
Bin, O., Dumas, C., Poulter, B., & Whitehead, J. (2007). Measuring the impacts of climate change on
North Carolina coastal resources. Washington, DC: National Commission on Energy Policy.
Bird, E. (1985). Coastline changes. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Braun, O., Lohmann, M., Maksimovic, O., Meyer, M., Merkovic, A., Messerschmidt, E., et al. (1999).
Potential impact of climate change effects on preference for tourism destinations: A psychological
pilot study. Climate Research, 11(3), 247–254.
Bruun, P. (1962). Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion. Journal of Waterways and Harbours
Division, 88(1–3), 117–130.
Buckley, R. (2008). Misperceptions of climate change damage on coastal tourism: Case study of
Byron Bay, Australia. Tourism Review International, 12, 71–88.
Buzinde, C., Manuel-Navarrete, D., Kerstetter, D., & Redclift, M. (2010a). Representations and
adaptation to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 581–603.
Buzinde, C., Manuel-Navarrete, D., Yoo, E.E., & Morais, D. (2010b). Tourists’ perceptions in a
climate of change: Eroding destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 333–354.
Cambers, G. (2009). Caribbean beach changes and climate change adaptation. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management, 12(2), 168–176.
Cameron, C., & Gatewood, J. (2008). Beyond sun, sand and sea: The emergent tourism program in
the Turks and Caicos Islands. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(1), 55–73.
Coombes, E.G., & Jones, A.P. (2010). Assessing the impact of climate change on visitor behaviour
and habitat use at the coast: A UK case study. Global Environmental Change, 20, 303–313.
Cowell, P., Thom, B., Jones, R.A., Everts, C.H., & Simanovic, D. (2006). Management of uncertainty
in predicting climate-change impacts on beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 22, 232–245.
Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Meisner, C., Wheeler, D., & Yan, J. (2008). The impact of sea level rise
on developing countries: A comparative analysis. Climatic Change, 93(3-4), 379–388.
Delta Commission. (2008). Working together with water: A living land builds for its future. Retrieved
July 11, 2010, from http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/deltareport_summary.pdf
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 897
Deutsche Bank Research. (2008). Climate change and tourism: Where will the journey take us?
Berlin: Deutsche Bank Research.
Duval, D.T. (Ed.) (2004). Tourism in the Caribbean, trends, development, prospects. London and
New York: Routledge.
El-Raey, M., Dewindar, K., & El-Hattab, M. (1999). Adaptation to the impacts of sea level rise in
Egypt. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, 343–361.
Environment Canada. (2002). Backgrounder on sea level rise and climate change impacts and
adaptation needs on PEI (Canada). Ottawa: Environment Canada.
Francia, C., & Juhasz, F. (1993). The lagoon of Venice, Italy, coastal zone management: Selected case
studies (pp. 109–134). Paris: OECD.
Gable, F. (1987). Changing climate and Caribbean coastlines. Oceanus, 30(4), 53–56.
Gable, F. (1990). Caribbean coastal and marine tourism: Coping with climate change and its associated
effects. Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Newport, OR: National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute.
Ghermandi, A., & Nunes, P. (2011). A global map of coastal recreation values: Results from a
spatially explicit meta-analysis. Department of Economics Working Paper 8/2011, Univer-
sity of Venice, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.unive.it/media/allegato/DIP/Economia/Working_
papers/Working_papers_2011/WP_DSE_ghermandi_nunes_08_11.pdf.
G¨
ossling, S., & Hall, C.M. (Eds.), (2006). Tourism and global environmental change. London:
Routledge.
Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C., & Jevrejeva, S. (2009). Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected
temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Climate Dynamics, 34(4), 461–472.
Hall, C.M. (2001). Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: The end of the last frontier? Ocean and
Coastal Management, 44(9–10), 601–618.
Hall, C.M. (2008). Tourism and climate change: Knowledge gaps and issues. Tourism Recreation
Research, 33, 339–350.
Hamilton, J. (2007). Coastal landscape and the hedonic price of accommodation. Ecological Eco-
nomics, 62, 594–602.
Hansen, J. (2007). Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 2, 1–6.
Herberger, M., Cooley, H., Herrera, P., Gleick, P., & Moore, E. (2009). The impacts of sea-level rise
on the California coast. Sacramento, CA: California Climate Change Center for the State of
California.
Honey, M., & Krantz, D. (2007). Global trends in coastal tourism. Retrieved October 10,
2010, from http://www.responsibletravel.org/resources/documents/reports/Global_Trends_in_
Coastal_Tourism_by_CESD_Jan_08_LR.pdf.
Horton, R., Herweijer, C., Rosenzweig, C., Liu, J., Gornitz, V., & Ruane, A. (2008). Sea level pro-
jections for current generation CGCMs based on semi-empirical method. Geophysical Research
Letters, 35(L02715), 1–5.
Houston, J. (2002). The economic value of beaches: A 2002 update. Shore and Beach, 70, 9–12.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2012). Summary for policymakers. In C.B.
Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach,
G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the risks of extreme
events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (pp. 1–19). A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK
and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jennings, S. (2004). Coastal tourism and shoreline management. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(8),
503–508.
Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A., & Woodworth, P.L. (2008). Recent global sea level accelera-
tion started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters, 35(L08715), 1–4.
King, P., McGregor, A., & Whittett, J. (2011). The economic costs of seal level rise to California beach
communities. Fresno: California Department of Boating and Waterways. Retrieved October 1,
2010, from http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PDF/Reports/CalifSeaLevelRise.pdf.
Leatherman, S. (1989). National assessment of beach nourishment requirements associated with
accelerated sea level rise. Report 68-02-73-89. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection
Agency.
Lim, B., & Spanger-Siegfried, E. (Eds.) (2005). Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: De-
veloping strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge: United Nations Development Programme
– Global Environment Facility, Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
898 D. Scott et al.
METI, NASA, and USGS. (2009). ASTER global DEM validation: Summary report. U.S. National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Pasadena, CA: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Moreno, A., & Becken, S. (2009). A climate change vulnerability assessment methodology for coastal
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4), 473–488.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. (2010). GSHHS – A Global Self-
consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Shoreline Database. Honolulu, HI: United States of
America.
Nicholls, R., & Cazenave, A. (2010). Sea level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science, 328(18),
1517–1520.
Nicholls, R., Marinova, N., Lowe, J., Brown, S., Vellinga, P., de Gusm˜
ao, D., et al. (2011). Sea-level
rise and its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4◦C world’ in the twenty-first century. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1934), 161–181.
Nicholls, R.J., Wong, P.P., Burkett, V.R., Codignotto, J.O., Hay, J.E., McLean, R.F., et al. (2007).
Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden, & C.E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (pp. 315–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oppenheimer, M., O’Neill, B., Webster, M., & Agrawala, S. (2007) “Climate change – The limits of
consensus”. Science, 317, 1505–1506.
Pfeffer, T., Harper, J., & O’Neel, S. (2008). Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to twenty-
first century sea-level rise. Science, 321(5894), 1340–1343.
Phillips, M., & Jones, A. (2006). Erosion and tourism infrastructure in the coastal zone: Problems,
consequences and management. Tourism Management, 27, 517–524.
Rahmstorf, S. (2010). A new view on sea level rise. Nature Reports Climate Change, 4, 44–45.
Rignot, E., Koppes, M., & Velicogna, I. (2010). Rapid submarine melting of the calving faces of West
Greenland glaciers. Nature Geoscience, 3, 187–191.
Schleupner, C. (2008). Evaluation of coastal squeeze and its consequences for the Caribbean island
Martinique. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51, 383–390.
Scott, D., Amelung, B., Becken, S., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., G ¨
ossling, S., et al. (2008). Climate change
and tourism: Responding to global challenges. Madrid/Paris/Geneva: UNWTO/UNEP/WMO.
Scott, D., & Becken, S. (2010). Adapting to climate change and climate policy: Progress, problems
and potentials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 283–295.
Scott, D., Hall, C.M., & G¨
ossling, S. (2012). Tourism and climate change. Impacts, mitigation and
adaptation. London: Routledge.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., et al. (Eds.) (2007). Climate
change 2007: The physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Stanton, E.A., & Ackerman, F. (2007). Florida and climate change: The costs of inaction. Medford,
MA: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University and Stockholm Environ-
ment Institute – US Center, Tufts University.
Stive, M. (2004). How important is global warming for coastal erosion? Climatic Change, 64, 27–39.
Stonich, S. (2000). The other side of paradise: Tourism, conservation, and development, in the Bay
Islands. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Tamisiea, M.E., & Mitrovica, J.X. (2011). The moving boundaries of sea level change: Understanding
the origins of geographic variability. Oceanography, 24(2), 24–39.
Uyarra, M.C., C ˆ
ot´
e, I.M., Gill, J.A., Tinch, R.R.T., Viner, D., & Watkinson, A.R. (2005). Island-
specific preferences of tourists for environmental features: Implications of climate change for
tourism-dependent states. Environmental Conservation, 32(1), 11–19.
Vermeer, M., & Rahmstorf, S. (2009). Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings
National Academy of Sciences, 106(51), 21527–21532.
Weaver, D. (2011). Can sustainable tourism survive climate change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
19(1), 5–15.
World Geodetic System. (1984). Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://georepository.com/
datum_6326/World-Geodetic-System-1984.html
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). (2011). Travel & tourism economic impact
2011 Caribbean. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.wttc.org/research/economic-
impact-research/regional-reports/caribbean/
Zhang, K., Douglas, B., & Leatherman, S. (2004). Global warming and coastal erosion. Climatic
Change, 64, 41–58.
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 12:22 13 March 2013
