Coastal Adaptation Choice under Sea-Level Uncertainty
A coastal municipality of 60,000 people faces erosion of about 1.5 metres per year and sea-level rise. A 2 km seawall built 20 years ago is now failing in three places and has narrowed the beach, reducing access for 1,200 fishing households and damaging tourism. The municipality has USD 2 million for adaptation. One proposal is to extend and heighten the seawall; another is to restore 40 hectares of mangroves and dunes and remove hard defences in two stretches. Fishers say they need a slipway and safe beach access; hotel owners want a hard barrier. The national government requires all adaptation investments to be climate-resilient and to avoid maladaptation. Sea-level projections for 2050 range from 0.2 to 0.5 metres, and current planning horizons are only five years. A donor wants a decision within three months.
1. How should the municipality appraise the seawall extension against mangrove and dune restoration, given uncertainty and the USD 2 million budget?
Read the worked answer
Appraise both options against multiple criteria, not just capital cost: risk reduction across a range of storm events, maintenance and replacement costs, co-benefits for fisheries, tourism and carbon, distributional impact on the 1,200 fishing households, reversibility and lock-in, and performance under 0.2 to 0.5 metres of sea-level rise. A taller seawall may protect assets in the short term but is expensive to maintain, narrows the beach further, and creates lock-in; it can also shift erosion downdrift. Mangroves and dunes provide wave attenuation, habitat and beach stability, but they take years to establish and may not protect against extreme surge alone. The likely best-value answer is a hybrid: repair the three failing seawall sections only where assets cannot be moved; restore 40 hectares of mangroves and dunes; remove hard defences in two stretches to allow managed realignment; and design a slipway and safe beach access with fishers. Phase the investment, monitor, and keep the option to adjust. This is more climate-resilient than a single hard barrier and avoids maladaptation.
2. How would you integrate DRR and climate adaptation in the design and ensure no maladaptation?
Read the worked answer
Integrate DRR and adaptation by using one joint risk assessment that combines current hazards with 2050 sea-level scenarios, and by testing each option against do-no-harm criteria: does it increase vulnerability for any group, narrow livelihood access, create lock-in, or shift risk elsewhere? Require participatory appraisal with fishers, hotel owners, women's groups and local government. Ensure the design protects the worst-off and maintains beach access; a seawall that cuts off fishers is maladaptation even if it protects hotels. Align with national standards and use nature-based measures where they are effective, but be honest about their limits in extreme events. Build in adaptive management: decision triggers, monitoring of erosion, mangrove survival, beach width and fisher access, and a review at 5 and 10 years. Finance should cover maintenance, not just construction. Finally, document the trade-offs publicly so the choice is accountable.
3. What decision process and monitoring plan would you propose for the three-month donor deadline?
Read the worked answer
Do not let the three-month donor deadline force an irreversible decision. Use the deadline to commission a rapid but transparent options appraisal, hold at least three community consultations, and select a no-regret first phase: repair the three failing seawall sections, restore mangroves and dunes in the two least contested stretches, and design the slipway with fishers. Set clear decision points for the larger seawall extension after monitoring and consultation. Define monitoring indicators now: shoreline position, beach width, mangrove survival, flood damage, fisher access, maintenance costs, and household satisfaction. Assign responsibilities and budget for monitoring. Publish the criteria and the reasons for the choice. If the donor requires a single project, frame the hybrid as one phased project with a review gate. This respects the deadline while preserving the ability to adapt, which is the core of climate-resilient DRR.